On 5/14/19 12:50 PM, Ilias Stamatis wrote:
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 12:40 PM John Ferlan
<jferlan(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/13/19 9:04 AM, Ilias Stamatis wrote:
>> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 2:38 PM Michal Privoznik <mprivozn(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/13/19 1:26 AM, Ilias Stamatis wrote:
>>>> Return the number of disks present in the configuration of the test
>>>> domain when called with @errors as NULL and @maxerrors as 0.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise report an error for every second disk, assigning available
>>>> error codes in a cyclic order.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ilias Stamatis <stamatis.iliass(a)gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> src/test/test_driver.c | 42
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/src/test/test_driver.c b/src/test/test_driver.c
>>>> index a06d1fc402..527c2f5d3b 100644
>>>> --- a/src/test/test_driver.c
>>>> +++ b/src/test/test_driver.c
>>>> @@ -3046,6 +3046,47 @@ static int testDomainSetAutostart(virDomainPtr
domain,
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static int testDomainGetDiskErrors(virDomainPtr dom,
>>>> + virDomainDiskErrorPtr errors,
>>>> + unsigned int maxerrors,
>>>> + unsigned int flags)
>>>> +{
>
> [...]
>
>>>> + n++;
>>>> + }
>>>> + ret = n;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + cleanup:
>>>> + virDomainObjEndAPI(&vm);
>>>> + if (ret < 0) {
>>>> + for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
>>>> + VIR_FREE(errors[i].disk);
>>>> + }
>
> The above got changed to :
>
> + cleanup:
> + virDomainObjEndAPI(&vm);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + for (i = 0; i < MIN(vm->def->ndisks, maxerrors); i++)
> + VIR_FREE(errors[i].disk);
> + }
I think this change is incorrect and a bug lies in here.
If VIR_STRDUP fails above, memory for less than MIN(vm->def->ndisks,
maxerrors) will have been allocated, and then in the cleanup code
we'll call VIR_FREE with pointers that haven't been previously
allocated.
That isn't a problem. User has to passed an array that we can touch. If
they store some data in it, well, their fault - how are we supposed to
return anything if we can't touch the array?
>
> and Coverity got a wee bit grumpy for a couple of reasons...
>
> - The virDomainObjEndAPI will set @vm = NULL which makes the MIN
> statement quite unhappy if ret < 0
> - However, just moving that to after the if condition isn't good
> enough since the testDomObjFromDomain could causes us to jump to
> cleanup: with @vm = NULL (easily solved by return -1 there instead).
Yep, I'll be posting patch soon.
Michal