Bug 732940
Summary: | New coverity defects in RHEL6.2 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 | Reporter: | Pavel Raiskup <praiskup> |
Component: | e2fsprogs | Assignee: | Lukáš Czerner <lczerner> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | BaseOS QE - Apps <qe-baseos-apps> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | 6.2 | CC: | sct |
Target Milestone: | rc | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | e2fsprogs-1.41.12-11.el6 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2011-12-06 18:18:10 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: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 743047 |
Description
Pavel Raiskup
2011-08-24 08:43:02 UTC
I forget to notice third defect: 3) Check for negative value on unsigned variable 'offset' => misc/e2image.c:771 error in 'llseek' will not be recorded when occurs -- never can reach less than zero value. Variable 'offset' should be signed type (e.g. ext2_loff_t which is correct ext2fs_llseek return type?) I think that these came about as a result of Lukas' e2image work, so I will assign to him. Lukas just sent a patch upstream for the issue in comment #2, FWIW. Thanks, -Eric Thanks Eric, The problem 1) is false positive, because we really do not need to check return value from the update_refcount() in that case. Problem 2) Is also false positive, because if check_qcow2_image() would return NULL, then E2IMAGE_IS_QCOW2_FLAG would not be set, hence qcow2_write_raw_image() would not be called at all. Problem 3) is real, however should not cause any real troubles because if the lseek would fail and we would not catch that, the next lseek will catch the problem, because we are using the offset there as well. However it is a bug and should be fixed. As Eric already pointed out, I did sent the patch upstream for the problem 3. Problems 1 and 2 are not real, hence no need to fix anything there. Thanks! -Lukas Built and tagged in e2fsprogs-1.41.12-11.el6 Hi, I have re-ran Coverity for e2fsprogs-1.41.12-11.el6 and reported problem (3) was successfully removed. Pavel Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-1735.html |