[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ceph-devel
Subject:    Re: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for ceph (fwd)
From:       Ric Wheeler <rwheeler () redhat ! com>
Date:       2014-09-30 17:41:46
Message-ID: 542AEB5A.9070804 () redhat ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 09/30/2014 01:38 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > Looks like recent changes from Greg, Loic, and I.
> > > 
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: scan-admin@coverity.com
> > > To: undisclosed-recipients:;
> > > Cc:
> > > Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 06:21:08 -0700
> > > Subject: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for ceph
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to ceph found with \
> > > Coverity Scan. 
> > > Defect(s) Reported-by: Coverity Scan
> > > Showing 4 of 4 defect(s)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ** CID 1242019:  Data race condition  (MISSING_LOCK)
> > > /msg/Pipe.cc: 230 in Pipe::DelayedDelivery::entry()()
> > > 
> > > ** CID 1242021:  Resource leak  (RESOURCE_LEAK)
> > > /test/librados/tier.cc: 1026 in \
> > >                 LibRadosTwoPoolsPP_EvictSnap2_Test::TestBody()()
> > > /test/librados/tier.cc: 1022 in \
> > >                 LibRadosTwoPoolsPP_EvictSnap2_Test::TestBody()()
> > > /test/librados/tier.cc: 1040 in \
> > >                 LibRadosTwoPoolsPP_EvictSnap2_Test::TestBody()()
> > > /test/librados/tier.cc: 1037 in \
> > > LibRadosTwoPoolsPP_EvictSnap2_Test::TestBody()() 
> > > ** CID 1242020:  Resource leak  (RESOURCE_LEAK)
> > > /test/librados/aio.cc: 168 in LibRadosAio_TooBig_Test::TestBody()()
> > > 
> > > ** CID 1242018:  Resource leak  (RESOURCE_LEAK)
> > > /test/librados/aio.cc: 188 in LibRadosAio_TooBigPP_Test::TestBody()()
> > > /test/librados/aio.cc: 190 in LibRadosAio_TooBigPP_Test::TestBody()()
> > > /test/librados/aio.cc: 187 in LibRadosAio_TooBigPP_Test::TestBody()()
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> > >                 
> > > *** CID 1242019:  Data race condition  (MISSING_LOCK)
> > > /msg/Pipe.cc: 230 in Pipe::DelayedDelivery::entry()()
> > > 224         if (flush_count > 0) {
> > > 225           --flush_count;
> > > 226           active_flush = true;
> > > 227         }
> > > 228         if (pipe->in_q->can_fast_dispatch(m)) {
> > > 229           if (!stop_fast_dispatching_flag) {
> > > > > > CID 1242019:  Data race condition  (MISSING_LOCK)
> > > > > > Accessing "this->delay_dispatching" without holding lock "Mutex._m". \
> > > > > > Elsewhere, "_ZN4Pipe15DelayedDeliveryE.delay_dispatching" is accessed \
> > > > > > with "Mutex._m" held 1 out of 2 times (1 of these accesses strongly imply \
> > > > > > that it is necessary).
> > > 230             delay_dispatching = true;
> > > 231             delay_lock.Unlock();
> > > 232             pipe->in_q->fast_dispatch(m);
> > > 233             delay_lock.Lock();
> > > 234             delay_dispatching = false;
> > > 235             if (stop_fast_dispatching_flag) {
> > This one's a false positive. (delay_dispatching is protected by the
> > delay_lock, but I think it's picking up on the Pipe::lock which is
> > held when DelayedDelivery is constructed and initialized.) Is there a
> > way I should annotate this, or is it something we need to adjust in
> > the Coverity web interface?
> There are annotations but I don't know how they work.  I've been marking
> them through the web interface...
> 
> sage
> 

Jeff and Kaleb (last I remember) had more expertise in coverity magic - they 
might know how to annotate those false positives...

ric

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]