On 2/27/14, 2:25 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Coverity spotted this.
>
> It complained that we didn't close the fd before returning in
> this case of incompatible options, but it seems like we should
> just test for the incompatible flags before even trying to open
> the file, no?
>
> (The open would have failed in any case, but with a somewhat
> cryptic "Invalid argument" - so it's probably better to state
> it plainly and bail immediately.)
So actually, we wouldn't leak, because the open would fail.
So I guess it's not the best subject & description...
-Eric
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/io/open.c b/io/open.c
> index 6bb0d46..c106fa7 100644
> --- a/io/open.c
> +++ b/io/open.c
> @@ -342,6 +342,11 @@ open_f(
> if (optind != argc - 1)
> return command_usage(&open_cmd);
>
> + if ((flags & (IO_READONLY|IO_TMPFILE)) == (IO_READONLY|IO_TMPFILE)) {
> + fprintf(stderr, _("-T and -r options are incompatible\n"));
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> fd = openfile(argv[optind], &geometry, flags, mode);
> if (fd < 0)
> return 0;
> @@ -349,11 +354,6 @@ open_f(
> if (!platform_test_xfs_fd(fd))
> flags |= IO_FOREIGN;
>
> - if ((flags & (IO_READONLY|IO_TMPFILE)) == (IO_READONLY|IO_TMPFILE)) {
> - fprintf(stderr, _("-T and -r options are incompatible\n"));
> - return -1;
> - }
> -
> addfile(argv[optind], fd, &geometry, flags);
> return 0;
> }
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
