| Message ID | ZwF9ZexNs1h-uC0MrbkgGtMtdyLinROjVSmMNVzNftjGVWgOiuzdD1dSXEtzNH7OHbBFY6GVDYVFIDBgc3lhGqCOb7kaNZolSBkVyl3rNr4=@szczek.dev (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] hw/i386/pc: Remove vmport value assertion | expand |
On 8/21/24 09:11, Kamil Szczęk wrote: > There is no need for this assertion here, as we only use vmport value > for equality/inequality checks. This was originally prompted by the > following Coverity report: > >>> CID 1559533: Integer handling issues (CONSTANT_EXPRESSION_RESULT) > >>> "pcms->vmport >= 0" is always true regardless of the values of > >>> its operands. This occurs as the logical first operand of "&&". > > Signed-off-by: Kamil Szczęk <kamil@szczek.dev> > Reported-By: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org> > --- > hw/i386/pc.c | 1 - > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c > index 7779c88a91..5302fd96b4 100644 > --- a/hw/i386/pc.c > +++ b/hw/i386/pc.c > @@ -1221,7 +1221,6 @@ void pc_basic_device_init(struct PCMachineState *pcms, > isa_realize_and_unref(pcms->pcspk, isa_bus, &error_fatal); > } > > - assert(pcms->vmport >= 0 && pcms->vmport < ON_OFF_AUTO__MAX); > if (pcms->vmport == ON_OFF_AUTO_AUTO) { > pcms->vmport = (xen_enabled() || !pcms->i8042_enabled) > ? ON_OFF_AUTO_OFF : ON_OFF_AUTO_ON; Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org> r~
On Wednesday, August 21st, 2024 at 01:11, Kamil Szczęk <kamil@szczek.dev> wrote: > There is no need for this assertion here, as we only use vmport value > for equality/inequality checks. This was originally prompted by the > following Coverity report: > >>> CID 1559533: Integer handling issues (CONSTANT_EXPRESSION_RESULT) > >>> "pcms->vmport >= 0" is always true regardless of the values of > >>> its operands. This occurs as the logical first operand of "&&". > > Signed-off-by: Kamil Szczęk <kamil@szczek.dev> > Reported-By: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org> Hi, just checking in to see if this needs any additional work.
On Mon, 16 Sept 2024 at 15:18, Kamil Szczęk <kamil@szczek.dev> wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 21st, 2024 at 01:11, Kamil Szczęk <kamil@szczek.dev> wrote: > > There is no need for this assertion here, as we only use vmport value > > for equality/inequality checks. This was originally prompted by the > > following Coverity report: > > >>> CID 1559533: Integer handling issues (CONSTANT_EXPRESSION_RESULT) > > >>> "pcms->vmport >= 0" is always true regardless of the values of > > >>> its operands. This occurs as the logical first operand of "&&". > > > > Signed-off-by: Kamil Szczęk <kamil@szczek.dev> > > Reported-By: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org> > > Hi, just checking in to see if this needs any additional work. No, it's fine -- looks like we just failed to pick up the patch. Sorry about that. We'll get it into 9.2. thanks -- PMM
diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c index 7779c88a91..5302fd96b4 100644 --- a/hw/i386/pc.c +++ b/hw/i386/pc.c @@ -1221,7 +1221,6 @@ void pc_basic_device_init(struct PCMachineState *pcms, isa_realize_and_unref(pcms->pcspk, isa_bus, &error_fatal); } - assert(pcms->vmport >= 0 && pcms->vmport < ON_OFF_AUTO__MAX); if (pcms->vmport == ON_OFF_AUTO_AUTO) { pcms->vmport = (xen_enabled() || !pcms->i8042_enabled) ? ON_OFF_AUTO_OFF : ON_OFF_AUTO_ON;