[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4d1ef78e-f001-a685-9a69-afa68454fdc7@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 10:52:23 +0200
From: Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>
To: Bo YU <tsu.yubo@...il.com>, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com, peterz@...radead.org, luto@...nel.org,
jannh@...gle.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] arch/x86: Return value from notify_die should to be
checked.
On 6/21/20 12:26 PM, Bo YU wrote:
> This is detected by Coverity scan: #CID: 1464472(CHECKED_RETURN)
>
> FIXES: c94082656dac7(x86: Use enum instead of literals for trap values)
> Signed-off-by: Bo YU <tsu.yubo@...il.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/traps.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c b/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> index af75109485c2..bf014fb59017 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> @@ -401,7 +401,8 @@ DEFINE_IDTENTRY_DF(exc_double_fault)
>
> nmi_enter();
> instrumentation_begin();
> - notify_die(DIE_TRAP, str, regs, error_code, X86_TRAP_DF, SIGSEGV);
> + if (notify_die(DIE_TRAP, str, regs, error_code, X86_TRAP_DF, SIGSEGV))
> + return;
>
This change is not correct, if there's a double fault then we should die even if
notify_die() fails. So the appropriate change to make Coverity happy is probably:
(void) notify_die(DIE_TRAP, str, regs, error_code, X86_TRAP_DF, SIGSEGV);
alex.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists