[SERVER-29529] Coverity analysis defect 101688: Missing unlock Created: 09/Jun/17  Updated: 27/Oct/23  Resolved: 09/Jun/17

Status: Closed
Project: Core Server
Component/s: WiredTiger
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Bug Priority: Major - P3
Reporter: Coverity Collector User Assignee: Keith Bostic (Inactive)
Resolution: Works as Designed Votes: 0
Labels: coverity
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original Estimate: Not Specified

Backwards Compatibility: Fully Compatible
Operating System: ALL
Participants:

 Description   

Missing a release of a lock on a path

Defect 101688 (STATIC_C)
Checker LOCK (subcategory missing_unlock)
File: /src/third_party/wiredtiger/src/btree/bt_split.c
Function __split_internal_lock
/src/third_party/wiredtiger/src/btree/bt_split.c, line: 1202
Returning without unlocking "parent->modify->page_lock.lock".

    	return (0);

File: /src/third_party/wiredtiger/src/btree/bt_split.c
Function __split_internal_lock
/src/third_party/wiredtiger/src/btree/bt_split.c, line: 1202
Returning without unlocking "parent->modify->page_lock.lock".

    	return (0);



 Comments   
Comment by Keith Bostic (Inactive) [ 09/Jun/17 ]

I'm not sure why Coverity thinks this is a problem, as the point of the function is to lock the page.

Agreed, I don't see a problem here.

Is a WT "page lock" really just a locked mutex, or is a page lock a variable that is set to a "locked" state?

Just a locked mutex.

Comment by Eric Milkie [ 09/Jun/17 ]

I'm not sure why Coverity thinks this is a problem, as the point of the function is to lock the page. Is a WT "page lock" really just a locked mutex, or is a page lock a variable that is set to a "locked" state?

Generated at Thu Feb 08 04:21:08 UTC 2024 using Jira 9.7.1#970001-sha1:2222b88b221c4928ef0de3161136cc90c8356a66.