Junfeng Yang wrote :
> Hi,
>
> Here are yet more results from the MC project. This checker looks for
> inconsistent usage of interrupt functions.
[...]
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> [BUG] error path
>
> /u2/acc/oses/linux/2.4.1/drivers/net/irda/irport.c:943:irport_net_ioctl: ERROR:INTR:947:997: Interrupts inconsistent, severity `20':997
>
> /* Disable interrupts & save flags */
> save_flags(flags);
> Start --->
> cli();
>
> switch (cmd) {
> case SIOCSBANDWIDTH: /* Set bandwidth */
> if (!capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN))
> return -EPERM;
> irda_task_execute(self, __irport_change_speed, NULL, NULL,
>
> ... DELETED 40 lines ...
>
> }
>
> restore_flags(flags);
>
> Error --->
> return ret;
> }
>
> static struct net_device_stats *irport_net_get_stats(struct net_device *dev)
> {
> ---------------------------------------------------------
I agree that the IrDA stack is full of irq/locking bugs (there
is a patch of mine waiting in Dag's mailbox), but this one is not a
bug, it's a false positive.
The restore_flags(flags); will restore the state of the
interrupt register before the cli happened, so will automatically
reenable interrupts. The exact same code was used all over the kernel
before spinlock were introduced.
So, if you see :
save_flags(flags);
cli();
...
restore_flags(flags);
It's correct (but a bit outdated).
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> [BUG] error path. this bug is interesting
>
> /u2/acc/oses/linux/2.4.1/drivers/net/pcmcia/wavelan_cs.c:2561:wavelan_get_wireless_stats: ERROR:INTR:2528:2561: Interrupts inconsistent, severity `20':2561
>
>
> /* Disable interrupts & save flags */
> Start --->
> spin_lock_irqsave (&lp->lock, flags);
>
> if(lp == (net_local *) NULL)
> return (iw_stats *) NULL;
> wstats = &lp->wstats;
>
> /* Get data from the mmc */
>
> ... DELETED 23 lines ...
>
>
> #ifdef DEBUG_IOCTL_TRACE
> printk(KERN_DEBUG "%s: <-wavelan_get_wireless_stats()\n", dev->name);
> #endif
> Error --->
> return &lp->wstats;
> }
> #endif /* WIRELESS_EXT */
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
Didn't look into 2.4.1, but in 2.4.2 the irq_restore is just
above the printk, in the part that is "DELETED". It even has a nice
comments to that effect. Check the code by yourself.
So, I guess it's another false positive and a bug in your
parser. That's why it's so "interesting" ;-)
Good luck...
Jean
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 23 2001 - 21:00:19 EST