Re: Coverity: io_wqe_worker(): Program hangs

[Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>]

On 10/28/19 5:30 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 05:27:59PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 10/28/19 5:05 PM, coverity-bot wrote:
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> This is an experimental automated report about issues detected by Coverity
>>> from a scan of next-20191025 as part of the linux-next weekly 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 recent commits:
>>>
>>> 46134db8fdc5 ("io-wq: small threadpool implementation for io_uring")
>>>
>>> Coverity reported the following:
>>>
>>> *** CID 1487365:  Program hangs  (LOCK)
>>> /fs/io-wq.c: 349 in io_wqe_worker()
>>> 343     			io_worker_handle_work(worker);
>>> 344     		else
>>> 345     			spin_unlock(&wqe->lock);
>>> 346     	}
>>> 347
>>> 348     	io_worker_exit(worker);
>>> vvv     CID 1487365:  Program hangs  (LOCK)
>>> vvv     Returning without unlocking "(*wqe).lock".
>>> 349     	return 0;
>>> 350     }
>>> 351
>>> 352     /*
>>> 353      * Check head of free list for an available worker. If one isn't available,
>>> 354      * caller must wake up the wq manager to create one.
>>>
>>> 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:
>>
>> It's a false positive, lock is dropped on non-zero return.
> 
> Does that happen in the caller side? I'll see if I can figure out how to
> teach coverity about that... Hmmm

I was trying to use the right incantations of __release() etc to shut up
the checker as well. So if there are things I could be improving on that
side, do let me know.

As mentioned in other emails, the linux-next version is somewhat outdated
at this point. My for-next branch has the latest version.

-- 
Jens Axboe