| Message ID | 20240327192750.204197-1-kwolf@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | block: Remove unnecessary NULL check in bdrv_pad_request() | expand |
Am 27.03.24 um 20:27 schrieb Kevin Wolf: > Coverity complains that the check introduced in commit 3f934817 suggests > that qiov could be NULL and we dereference it before reaching the check. > In fact, all of the callers pass a non-NULL pointer, so just remove the > misleading check. > > Resolves: Coverity CID 1542668 > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> Thank you for the fix, Fiona
On 27/3/24 20:27, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Coverity complains that the check introduced in commit 3f934817 suggests > that qiov could be NULL and we dereference it before reaching the check. > In fact, all of the callers pass a non-NULL pointer, so just remove the > misleading check. > > Resolves: Coverity CID 1542668 > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> > --- > block/io.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
On 27/3/24 20:27, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Coverity complains that the check introduced in commit 3f934817 suggests > that qiov could be NULL and we dereference it before reaching the check. > In fact, all of the callers pass a non-NULL pointer, so just remove the > misleading check. > > Resolves: Coverity CID 1542668 > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> > --- > block/io.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Since I'm not seeing other block related patch for 9.0 and I'm preparing a pull request, I'm queuing this one. Regards, Phil.
Am 02.04.2024 um 12:53 hat Philippe Mathieu-Daudé geschrieben: > On 27/3/24 20:27, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Coverity complains that the check introduced in commit 3f934817 suggests > > that qiov could be NULL and we dereference it before reaching the check. > > In fact, all of the callers pass a non-NULL pointer, so just remove the > > misleading check. > > > > Resolves: Coverity CID 1542668 > > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> > > --- > > block/io.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > Since I'm not seeing other block related patch for 9.0 and > I'm preparing a pull request, I'm queuing this one. Thanks, Phil. I didn't send a pull request because I didn't have anything else and silencing a Coverity false positive didn't seem urgent for 9.0, but it certainly doesn't hurt either. Kevin
diff --git a/block/io.c b/block/io.c index 395bea3bac..7217cf811b 100644 --- a/block/io.c +++ b/block/io.c @@ -1730,7 +1730,7 @@ static int bdrv_pad_request(BlockDriverState *bs, * For prefetching in stream_populate(), no qiov is passed along, because * only copy-on-read matters. */ - if (qiov && *qiov) { + if (*qiov) { sliced_iov = qemu_iovec_slice(*qiov, *qiov_offset, *bytes, &sliced_head, &sliced_tail, &sliced_niov);
Coverity complains that the check introduced in commit 3f934817 suggests that qiov could be NULL and we dereference it before reaching the check. In fact, all of the callers pass a non-NULL pointer, so just remove the misleading check. Resolves: Coverity CID 1542668 Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> --- block/io.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)