On 10/19/21 12:33 AM, Karsten Graul wrote:
On 18/10/2021 20:31, Tim Gardner wrote:
Coverity complains of a possible NULL dereference in smc_find_rdma_v2_device_serv().
1782 smc_v2_ext = smc_get_clc_v2_ext(pclc);
CID 121151 (#1 of 1): Dereference null return value (NULL_RETURNS)
5. dereference: Dereferencing a pointer that might be NULL smc_v2_ext when calling smc_clc_match_eid. [show details]
1783 if (!smc_clc_match_eid(ini->negotiated_eid, smc_v2_ext, NULL, NULL))
1784 goto not_found;
Fix this by checking for NULL.
Hmm that's a fundamental question for me: do we want to make the code checkers happy?
While I understand that those warnings give an uneasy feeling I am not sure
if the code should have additional (unneeded) checks only to avoid them.
Coverity produces a lot of false positives. I thought this one might be
legitimate, but if you're comfortable that its not an issue then I'm OK
with that.
In this case all NULL checks are initially done in smc_listen_v2_check(),
afterwards no more NULL checks are needed. When we would like to add them
then a lot more checks are needed, e.g. 3 times in smc_find_ism_v2_device_serv()
(not sure why coverity does not complain about them, too).
Thoughts?
Coverity probably has produced a report from the other call sites if
you've used a similar pattern, I just hadn't gotten to them yet.
I'll just mark them all as false positives.
rtg
--
-----------
Tim Gardner
Canonical, Inc
