coverity complained (rightly) about the risk of closing a negative file descriptor. However, the real problem was the missing test for a failed "accept" call. I'm not 100% sure that a failed accept call deserves to provoke a "goto cleanup", but doing that is consistent with what the nearby code does upon epoll_ctl failure.

From 8bfd81f0a8a9cb3fd9b575e9c2f5ab9969a2910f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jim Meyering <meyering@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 11:55:19 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] lxc_controller.c: don't ignore failed "accept"

* src/lxc/lxc_controller.c (lxcControllerMain): A failed accept could lead to passing a negative file descriptor to various other functions, which would in turn report EBADF, rather that whatever error prompted the initial failure. --- src/lxc/lxc_controller.c | 5 +++++ 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/lxc/lxc_controller.c b/src/lxc/lxc_controller.c index 6304815..682f874 100644 --- a/src/lxc/lxc_controller.c +++ b/src/lxc/lxc_controller.c @@ -349,6 +349,11 @@ static int lxcControllerMain(int monitor, if (numEvents > 0) { if (epollEvent.data.fd == monitor) { int fd = accept(monitor, NULL, 0); + if (fd < 0) { + virReportSystemError(NULL, errno, "%s", + _("accept(monitor,...) failed")); + goto cleanup; + } if (client != -1) { /* Already connected, so kick new one out */ close(fd); continue; -- 1.7.0.rc1.149.g0b0b7