From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
Malcolm Crossley <malcolm.crossley@citrix.com>
Cc: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>,
xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
Subject: Re: missing lock in percpu_rwlock? (Was: Re: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for XenProject)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 11:00:13 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1454497213.25207.62.camel@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56B1DB64.8040402@citrix.com>
On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 10:50 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 03/02/16 10:45, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 20:23 -0800, scan-admin@coverity.com wrote:
> > > * CID 1351223: Concurrent data access violations (MISSING_LOCK)
> > > /xen/include/xen/spinlock.h: 362 in _percpu_write_unlock()
> > Coverity seems to think this is new in 41b0aa569adb..9937763265d,
> > presumably due to
> >
> > commit f9dd43dddc0a31a4343a58072935c1b5c0cbbee
> > Author: Malcolm Crossley <malcolm.crossley@citrix.com>
> > Date: Fri Jan 22 16:04:41 2016 +0100
> >
> > rwlock: add per-cpu reader-writer lock infrastructure
>
> Expected behaviour. writer_activating is expected to only be written
> under lock, but read without lock.
I suppose this is something we should eventually model?
Would you typically mark this as "False positive" or "Intentional"?
I just marked a couple of libxl ones about taking ctx->lock (which is
recursive) twice as "False positive", but perhaps "Intentional" is the
correct designation there?
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-03 11:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <56b180c017d5f_214fb5b3143623f@ss1435.mail>
2016-02-03 10:37 ` Leaks in xc_tbuf_get_size() (Was: Re: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for XenProject) Ian Campbell
2016-02-03 10:42 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-02-03 10:54 ` Ian Campbell
2016-02-03 14:21 ` George Dunlap
2016-02-03 10:39 ` Leak in xc_dom_load_hvm_kernel() (Was; " Ian Campbell
2016-02-03 10:59 ` [PATCH] libxc: fix leak in xc_dom_load_hvm_kernel error path Roger Pau Monne
2016-02-03 11:49 ` Ian Campbell
2016-02-03 10:45 ` missing lock in percpu_rwlock? (Was: Re: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for XenProject) Ian Campbell
2016-02-03 10:47 ` Ian Campbell
2016-02-03 10:50 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-02-03 11:00 ` Ian Campbell [this message]
2016-02-03 12:21 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-02-03 12:24 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-02-03 12:32 ` Ian Campbell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1454497213.25207.62.camel@citrix.com \
--to=ian.campbell@citrix.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=george.dunlap@citrix.com \
--cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=malcolm.crossley@citrix.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.