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@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list