On 09/22/2011 04:12 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 09/21/2011 12:10 PM, ajia(a)redhat.com wrote:
> From: Alex Jia<ajia(a)redhat.com>
>
> * src/locking/lock_driver_sanlock.c: in fact, virStrcpy calls
> virStrncpy(dest, src, strlen(src), destbytes) then return result,
> if 'path' is NULL, it means 'src' is also NULL, strlen(NULL) will
> dereference a NULL pointer, which probably causes a segmentation
> fault.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Jia<ajia(a)redhat.com>
> ---
> src/locking/lock_driver_sanlock.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/locking/lock_driver_sanlock.c
> b/src/locking/lock_driver_sanlock.c
> index 2d72510..8c6d873 100644
> --- a/src/locking/lock_driver_sanlock.c
> +++ b/src/locking/lock_driver_sanlock.c
> @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ static int virLockManagerSanlockSetupLockspace(void)
> memcpy(ls.name, VIR_LOCK_MANAGER_SANLOCK_AUTO_DISK_LOCKSPACE,
> SANLK_NAME_LEN);
> ls.host_id = 0; /* Doesn't matter for initialization */
> ls.flags = 0;
> - if (!virStrcpy(ls.host_id_disk.path, path, SANLK_PATH_LEN)) {
> + if (!path || !virStrcpy(ls.host_id_disk.path, path,
> SANLK_PATH_LEN)) {
> virLockError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR,
> _("Lockspace path '%s' exceeded %d
characters"),
> path, SANLK_PATH_LEN);
NACK. The prior virAsprintf guarantees that path is non-NULL at this
point. Rather, the real problem that Coverity is complaining about
here is that the only way to get to the error_unlink: label is if path
is already non-NULL, so that the 'if (path)' in that label is redundant.
Yeah, you're right, I will commit a new patch, because this subject is
inappropriate, so I haven't naming v2 for this patch, the new patch
subject is "[libvirt] [PATCH] locking: remove redundant codes".
Thanks,
Alex