netdev - Re: [linux-next:master] BUILD REGRESSION 296d53d8f84ce50ffaee7d575487058c8d437335

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <739807cf-4551-4760-83e0-a94026b5c1b8@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2023 07:11:37 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
 kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-next:master] BUILD REGRESSION
 296d53d8f84ce50ffaee7d575487058c8d437335

On 7/4/23 00:15, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2023-07-03 16:11, kernel test robot wrote:
>> tree/branch:
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git
>> master
>> branch HEAD: 296d53d8f84ce50ffaee7d575487058c8d437335  Add linux-next
>> specific files for 20230703
>>
> 
> [...]
> 
>> Unverified Error/Warning (likely false positive, please contact us if
>> interested):
>>
>> arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c:147:3-9: preceding lock on line 140
> 
> This *is* a false positive. The function is entered with a lock
> held, it will exit with the lock held as well. Inside the body
> of the function, we release and reacquire the lock.

Which tool reported this message? If this message was reported by 
sparse, has it been considered to add a __must_hold() annotation?

Thanks,

Bart.