Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 02:42:54PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Here are two patches to avoid semblance of a leak.
>>
>> One adds a useless use of VIR_FREE.
>> The other adds an assertion that the pointer to would-be-leaked
>> storage is NULL. There's already an assertion in this file,
>> so no need to add an "#include ...".
>>
>> Take your pick.
>>
>> >From 2070262e7f1a4803e06a6f75bd96091c5754164d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Jim Meyering <meyering@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:34:48 +0100
>> Subject: [PATCH] vshCommandParse: placate coverity
>>
>> There is no real leak here, but Coverity-Prevent thinks there is.
>> It does not see that while there are four ways to return from
>> vshCommandGetToken with VSH_TK_END, none of them results in allocation
>> of a result.
>> * tools/virsh.c (vshCommandParse): Add a (currently) useless VIR_FREE,
>> to ensure that we never leak when vshCommandGetToken returns VSH_TK_END.
>> ---
>> tools/virsh.c | 4 +++-
>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/virsh.c b/tools/virsh.c
>> index 7db48d9..4ffa154 100644
>> --- a/tools/virsh.c
>> +++ b/tools/virsh.c
>> @@ -8222,8 +8222,10 @@ vshCommandParse(vshControl *ctl, char *cmdstr)
>>
>> str = end;
>>
>> - if (tk == VSH_TK_END)
>> + if (tk == VSH_TK_END) {
>> + VIR_FREE(tkdata);
>> break;
>> + }
>> if (tk == VSH_TK_ERROR)
>> goto syntaxError;
>>
>
> I prefer that one :-)
I've pushed them all.
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list