On 02/15/2013 10:44 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 02/15/2013 08:12 AM, John Ferlan wrote: >> On 02/15/2013 08:54 AM, Peter Krempa wrote: >>> On 02/15/13 14:17, Eric Blake wrote: >>>> On 02/15/2013 02:01 AM, Peter Krempa wrote: >>>> >>>>>> So, one could logically believe the check could change to: >>>>>> >>>>>> sa_assert(fd == -1 || (fd >= 3 && fd <= 8)); >>>> >>>> Yes, I like that. >>> >>> If I understood it correctly, the above condition won't shut up >>> coverity, only sa_assert(fd == -1) does as coverity then thinks that fd >>> was > 8 and thus closed. Otherwise it does not detect the magic we're >>> doing later. >> >> Yes, correct, hence the need for the "/* coverity[overwrite_var] */ tag. > > If you're using the /* coverity[overwrite_var] */ tag, then do we still > need the sa_assert? This is one case where leaving comments to shut up > coverity is fair game, because it is a test program, and because we > already know we are doing some unusual games with fds to get into a > known state. > The sa_assert() would not be required. I think by setting to just -1, Coverity chose to not check fd >=3 && <=8. That is perhaps it "tells" Coverity that we know our inputs and we're guaranteeing that the VIR_CLOSE will happen. I will remove the sa_assert and keep the comment. John -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list