Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 01/14] viralloc: Adjust definition of VIR_FREE() for Coverity
On 01/22/2013 07:15 AM, John Ferlan wrote:
The Coverity static analyzer was generating many false positives for
the
unary operation inside the VIR_FREE() definition as it was trying to evaluate
the else portion of the "?:" even though the if portion was (1).
Simplifying VIR_FREE for Coverity is fine by me - we get the best of
both worlds: gcc compilation points out type mismatches, and Coverity
doesn't get confused with false positives.
-# define VIR_FREE(ptr) virFree((void *) (1 ? (const void *)
&(ptr) : (ptr)))
+# if !STATIC_ANALYSIS
+# define VIR_FREE(ptr) virFree((void *) (1 ? (const void *) &(ptr) : (ptr)))
+# else
+/* The Coverity static analyzer considers the else path of the "?:" and
+ * flags the VIR_FREE() of the address of the address of memory as a
+ * RESOURCE_LEAK resulting in numerous false positives (eg, VIR_FREE(&ptr))
+ */
+# define VIR_FREE(ptr) virFree((void *) ((const void *) &(ptr)))
However, this is too complex. It is sufficient to do:
# define VIR_FREE(ptr) virFree((void *) &(ptr))
ACK with that change, so I'll go ahead and push it in your name.
--
Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachments:
- signature.asc (application/pgp-signature — 621 bytes)