Good luck in your efforts, and thanks for your work on static analysis.
> On Jan 27, 2018, at 9:12 PM, Jia-Ju Bai <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 2018/1/28 1:48, Ed Cashin wrote:
>> If the tool cannot tell whether the protected state is manipulated by
>> *another* piece of code called in atomic context, then it's insufficient.
>>
>>> On Jan 26, 2018, at 4:37 AM, Jia-Ju Bai <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> After checking all possible call chains to aoenet_rcv(),
>>> my tool finds that aoenet_rcv() is never called in atomic context,
>>> namely never in an interrupt handler or holding a spinlock.
>>> Thus GFP_ATOMIC is not necessary, and it can be replaced with GFP_KERNEL.
>>>
>>> This is found by a static analysis tool named DCNS written by myself.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/block/aoe/aoenet.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/block/aoe/aoenet.c b/drivers/block/aoe/aoenet.c
>>> index 63773a9..d5fff7a 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/block/aoe/aoenet.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/block/aoe/aoenet.c
>>> @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ static int __init aoe_iflist_setup(char *str)
>>> if (dev_net(ifp) != &init_net)
>>> goto exit;
>>>
>>> - skb = skb_share_check(skb, GFP_ATOMIC);
>>> + skb = skb_share_check(skb, GFP_KERNEL);
>>> if (skb == NULL)
>>> return 0;
>>> if (!is_aoe_netif(ifp))
>>> --
>>> 1.7.9.5
>>>
>>>
>
> Sorry, I find my report is false positive after I manually check the code.
> aoenet_rcv() is used as function pointer via "->func", and it is called in
> dev_queue_xmit_nit() in net/core/dev.c.
> dev_queue_xmit_nit() calls a rcu_read_lock() before it calls pt_prev->func().
> Thus it is right to use GFP_ATOMIC in aoenet_rcv().
> Sorry again for my incorrect report...
>
> Thanks,
> Jia-Ju Bai
