Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 2/5] commandtest: Resolve some coverity resource leaks
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.
Coverity will try 2 paths and only tell you when it fails. I figured
that out when going back through this exercise based on the review.
Paying close attention to trail of messages it leaves is the key - when
I first made changes to this code - I'm not sure I picked that up.
John
Peter
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list