linux-kernel - Re: drivers/md/dm-vdo/data-vio.c:976 vdo_launch_bio() warn: inconsistent returns '&pool->lock'.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a048daa6-ab57-4d06-a7d6-df119e2845c0@stanley.mountain>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 22:49:27 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Matthew Sakai <msakai@...hat.com>
Cc: Philip Li <philip.li@...el.com>, oe-kbuild@...ts.linux.dev,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>, lkp@...el.com,
	oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: drivers/md/dm-vdo/data-vio.c:976 vdo_launch_bio() warn:
 inconsistent returns '&pool->lock'.

On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 01:03:35PM -0400, Matthew Sakai wrote:
> Okay. Just to restate, what I took away from this thread is
> 1) The current code provokes a warning.
> 2) When bisecting, the bot found a (different) warning from the patch
> introducing this code, and so the mail points out that warning instead of
> the warning in newer code.

Not a different warning.  It's same warning.  It's just that the code in the
original commit was buggy and Smatch kept on warning about it even when it was
fixed.

> 3) The warning is showing up now because new checking allows the bot to
> notice problems it didn't notice before.
> 
> The commit I cited fixed warning from sparse, but I don't think we looked at
> smatch. This particular code does not have a locking problem, but the way
> it's spelled makes it difficult for static tools to understand that there is
> not a problem. I'll take a look and see if there's anything further I can do
> address the actual current warning.

Don't invest a lot of time into this.  I'm re-working the locking check really
heavily right now.  I know how to silence this warning when the cross function
DB is enabled.  It's just that I'm trying to decide the best way to do it.

regards,
dan carpenter