On 7/15/20 7:48 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> There is not much sense trying to disprove host is IPv6 capable
> if we know after first round (getifaddrs()) that is is not.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> src/rpc/virnetsocket.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/rpc/virnetsocket.c b/src/rpc/virnetsocket.c
> index b6bc3edc3b..b0d63f0f2c 100644
> --- a/src/rpc/virnetsocket.c
> +++ b/src/rpc/virnetsocket.c
> @@ -205,7 +205,8 @@ int virNetSocketCheckProtocols(bool *hasIPv4,
> freeifaddrs(ifaddr);
>
>
> - if (virNetSocketCheckProtocolByLookup("::1", AF_INET6, hasIPv6) < 0)
> + if (hasIPv6 &&
For this and the subsequent hasIPv4 patch, Coverity complains that
checking "if (hasIPv6)" is a REVERSE_INULL issue since a few lines above
we have "*hasIPv4 = *hasIPv6 = false;" or individual setting to true.
This then should be "if (!*hasIPv6..." and of course the same for hasIPv4.
/me wonders what kind of slight optimization exists or anyone cares
about in the ifaddr loop once both has* bool ptrs are proven true - it's
not like there's a set to false...
John
> + virNetSocketCheckProtocolByLookup("::1", AF_INET6, hasIPv6) < 0)
> return -1;
>
> VIR_DEBUG("Protocols: v4 %d v6 %d", *hasIPv4, *hasIPv6);
>
