On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 07:33:34PM +0000, Martin Wilck wrote: > On Mon, 2021-05-17 at 20:51 +0200, Martin Wilck wrote: > > On Mon, 2021-05-17 at 11:29 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > > > When ev_remove_path() returned success, callers assumed that the > > > path > > > (and possibly the map) had been removed. When ev_remove_path() > > > returned > > > failure, callers assumed that the path had not been removed. > > > However, > > > the path could be removed on both success or failure. This could > > > cause > > > callers to dereference the path after it was removed. > > > > > > To deal with this, make ev_remove_path() return a different > > > symbolic > > > value for each outcome, and make the callers react appropriately > > > for > > > the different values. Found by coverity. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Marzinski <bmarzins@xxxxxxxxxx>+ > > > > Reviewed-by: Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx> > > > > It just occured to me that we should probably not have set changed the > return code of cli_del_path() because of a strdup() failure for the > reply string. (It was my suggestion, I know). If we're at a point where we get an error on that strdup(), things are probably going badly in general. But yeah, I agree that success makes more sense than failure here. -Ben > Anyway, I've pushed this to "queue" already. > We can change this in a follow-up patch. > > Regards > Martin -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
