Re: Coverity: scan_swap_map(): Memory - corruptions

["Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>]

coverity-bot <keescook@chromium.org> writes:

> Hello!
>
> This is an experimental semi-automated report about issues detected by
> Coverity from a scan of next-20200422 as part of the linux-next scan project:
> https://scan.coverity.com/projects/linux-next-weekly-scan
>
> You're getting this email because you were associated with the identified
> lines of code (noted below) that were touched by commits:
>
>   Wed Feb 22 15:45:33 2017 -0800
>     36005bae205d ("mm/swap: allocate swap slots in batches")
>
> Coverity reported the following:
>
> *** CID 1492705:  Memory - corruptions  (OVERRUN)
> /mm/swapfile.c: 972 in scan_swap_map()
> 966     static unsigned long scan_swap_map(struct swap_info_struct *si,
> 967     				   unsigned char usage)
> 968     {
> 969     	swp_entry_t entry;
> 970     	int n_ret;
> 971
> vvv     CID 1492705:  Memory - corruptions  (OVERRUN)
> vvv     Overrunning struct type swp_entry_t of 8 bytes by passing it to a function which accesses it at byte offset 15.
> 972     	n_ret = scan_swap_map_slots(si, usage, 1, &entry);
> 973
> 974     	if (n_ret)
> 975     		return swp_offset(entry);
> 976     	else
> 977     		return 0;
>
> If this is a false positive, please let us know so we can mark it as
> such, or teach the Coverity rules to be smarter. If not, please make
> sure fixes get into linux-next. :) For patches fixing this, please
> include these lines (but double-check the "Fixes" first):
>
> Human edit:
> I can't tell if this is a false positive. The detailed analysis points
> at:
>
> 844        si->cluster_next = offset + 1;
>    	67. index_const: Pointer slots directly indexed by n_ret++ with value 1.
> 845        slots[n_ret++] = swp_entry(si->type, offset);

If my understanding were correct, this will not cause problem.  Because
in the next line,

   /* got enough slots or reach max slots? */
   if ((n_ret == nr) || (offset >= si->highest_bit))
           goto done;

The value of n_ret will be checked and function will return if n_ret==1
because nr==1.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying