Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 2/5] commandtest: Resolve some coverity resource leaks

On 02/15/2013 08:12 AM, John Ferlan wrote: > On 02/15/2013 08:54 AM, Peter Krempa wrote: >> On 02/15/13 14:17, Eric Blake wrote: >>> On 02/15/2013 02:01 AM, Peter Krempa wrote: >>> >>>>> So, one could logically believe the check could change to: >>>>> >>>>> sa_assert(fd == -1 || (fd >= 3 && fd <= 8)); >>> >>> Yes, I like that. >> >> If I understood it correctly, the above condition won't shut up >> coverity, only sa_assert(fd == -1) does as coverity then thinks that fd >> was > 8 and thus closed. Otherwise it does not detect the magic we're >> doing later. > > Yes, correct, hence the need for the "/* coverity[overwrite_var] */ tag. If you're using the /* coverity[overwrite_var] */ tag, then do we still need the sa_assert? This is one case where leaving comments to shut up coverity is fair game, because it is a test program, and because we already know we are doing some unusual games with fds to get into a known state.