As long as we can precisely 'teach' Coverity our usage patterns that are known to be correct, it is OK to address a family of issues. If there is an advertised interface in Coverity to do that then we should be able to 'undo' it as well. OTOH, closing a bunch of similar looking (but incorrectly grouped as same) may not be safe. I am assuming you are talking about this kind of grouping. ----- Original Message ----- > On 12/17/2014 01:54 PM, Atin Mukherjee wrote: > > > > On 12/17/2014 01:01 PM, Lalatendu Mohanty wrote: > >> On 12/17/2014 12:56 PM, Krishnan Parthasarathi wrote: > >>> I was looking into a Coverity issue (CID 1228603) in GlusterFS. > >>> I sent a patch[1] before I fully understood why this was an issue. > >>> After searching around in the internet for explanations, I identified > >>> that > >>> the core issue was that a character buffer, storing parts of a file > >>> (external I/O), > >>> was marked tainted. This taint spread wherever the buffer was used. > >>> This seems > >>> acceptable in the context of static analysis. How do we indicate to > >>> Coverity that > >>> the 'taint' would cause no harm as speculated? > >>> > >>> [1] - Coverity fix attempt: http://review.gluster.org/#/c/9286/ > >>> [2] - CID 1228603: Use of untrusted scalar value (TAINTED_SCALAR): > >>> glusterd-utils.c: 2131 in glusterd_readin_file() > >>> > >>> thanks, > >>> kp > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Gluster-devel mailing list > >>> Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx > >>> http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > >> KP, > >> > >> We can mark the CID in Coverity scan website that it is not an issue > >> (i.e. as designed) and it would stop reporting it as a bug. > > Question is whether coverity will stop reporting on such occurrences in > > other places in future, my guess is no. Idea is to make coverity > > understand that this pattern should not be reported further. > > > > ~Atin > > Atin, > > Thanks for clarifying. I don't how if we can tell Coverity about a pattern. > > However IMO we should not consider a family of issue e.g. in this case > "Use of untrusted scalar value" as non-issue. I would rather go through > each of them and decide if it an issue or non-issue. > > Thanks, > Lala > >> Let me if you need any help to mark it as not a bug. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Lala > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Gluster-devel mailing list > >> Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx > >> http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > > _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
