On 09/22/2011 04:12 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 09/21/2011 12:10 PM, ajia@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Alex Jia<ajia@xxxxxxxxxx>
* 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
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 " [PATCH] locking: remove redundant codes".
Thanks,
Alex
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list