Bug 1014354

Summary:	Coverity fixes - 12023, 12024, and 12025
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7	Reporter:	Rich Megginson <rmeggins>
Component:	389-ds-base	Assignee:	Rich Megginson <rmeggins>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Sankar Ramalingam <sramling>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	7.0	CC:	jgalipea, nhosoi, nkinder, rmeggins
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	7.0
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	389-ds-base-1.3.1.6-5.el7	Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:	These were introduced by the bug fixes to the 389-ds-base version for rhel-7.0. No need to doc.	Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2014-06-13 12:11:18 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Rich Megginson 2013-10-01 19:22:50 UTC

This bug is created as a clone of upstream ticket:
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47540

fix newer coverity issues 12023, 12024, and 12025

ldclt.c: 12023 Ignoring number of bytes read
The number of bytes copied into the buffer can be smaller than the requested number and the buffer can potentially be accessed out of range.
In basicInit: Value returned from a function and indicating the number of bytes read is ignored.

roles_cache.c: 12024 Resource leak
The system resource will not be reclaimed and reused, reducing the future availability of the resource.
In roles_cache_create_object_from_entry: Leak of memory or pointers to system resources

dblayer.c: 12025 Wrong sizeof argument
The wrong sizeof value is used in an expression or as argument to a function. The result is an incorrect value that may cause unexpected program behaviors.
In read_metadata: The sizeof operator is invoked on the wrong argument

Comment 3 Sankar Ramalingam 2014-02-01 03:44:00 UTC

Is this sanity only verification?

Comment 4 Rich Megginson 2014-02-03 15:31:45 UTC

(In reply to Sankar Ramalingam from comment #3)
> Is this sanity only verification?

Yes, and checking coverity to see there are no issues.

Comment 5 Sankar Ramalingam 2014-02-04 04:34:29 UTC

(In reply to Rich Megginson from comment #4)
> (In reply to Sankar Ramalingam from comment #3)
> > Is this sanity only verification?
> 
> Yes, and checking coverity to see there are no issues.

How do I check coverity reports 389-ds-base?

Comment 6 Noriko Hosoi 2014-02-04 05:55:14 UTC

This is the 389-ds link.  The page is now empty.

http://vm-095.idm.lab.bos.redhat.com:8080/reports.htm#v10120/p10014

Comment 7 Sankar Ramalingam 2014-02-07 13:33:45 UTC

(In reply to Noriko Hosoi from comment #6)
> This is the 389-ds link.  The page is now empty.
I don't have an access to this page. Should I go ahead and mark the bug as verified since there are no Coverity issues reported?
> 
> http://vm-095.idm.lab.bos.redhat.com:8080/reports.htm#v10120/p10014

Comment 8 Rich Megginson 2014-02-07 14:20:13 UTC

Yes, please mark as VERIFIED.

Comment 9 Sankar Ramalingam 2014-02-13 11:46:07 UTC

As per Rich's comment, marking the bug as Verified.

Comment 10 Ludek Smid 2014-06-13 12:11:18 UTC

This request was resolved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.0.

Contact your manager or support representative in case you have further questions about the request.