Bug 791278
Summary: | Bugs found in clearsilver-0.10.5-17.fc17 using gcc-with-cpychecker static analyzer | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Dave Malcolm <dmalcolm> | ||||
Component: | clearsilver | Assignee: | Gwyn Ciesla <gwync> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED EOL | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | unspecified | ||||||
Version: | 19 | CC: | gwync | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||
OS: | Unspecified | ||||||
URL: | http://fedorapeople.org/~dmalcolm/gcc-python-plugin/2012-02-16/clearsilver-0.10.5-17.fc17/ | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2015-02-18 13:41:14 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: | 789472 | ||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Dave Malcolm
2012-02-16 16:13:43 UTC
Fascinating. . .thank you! It looks like these haven't been addressed in upstream releases or SVN as of this writing. I've started a patch. For the segfaulter, my C is less than it should be, is simply testing result's NULLness and free()ing it as appropriate likely to be sufficient here? (In reply to comment #1) > Fascinating. . .thank you! It looks like these haven't been addressed in > upstream releases or SVN as of this writing. I've started a patch. Thanks! > For the segfaulter, my C is less than it should be, is simply testing result's > NULLness and free()ing it as appropriate likely to be sufficient here? That doesn't sound correct to me - you don't typically free() python objects. If I'm reading python_upload_cb right, the case where result is non-NULL *is* being correctly cleaned up. The issue is when result is NULL: something ought to check for result == NULL and do something appropriate, similar to the error-handling for the case when the callback returns a non-int value. FWIW, a guide to the C Python API can be seen here: http://docs.python.org/extending/index.html and detailed notes are here: http://docs.python.org/c-api/index.html though if you're not yet familiar with this API, it's probably best to engage with upstream. Hope this is helpful Dave Ah, I see. I think it's nearly correct, except it looks like not all cases. What if I modified: if (result != NULL && !PyInt_Check(result)) { Py_DECREF(result); result = NULL; PyErr_SetString(PyExc_TypeError, "upload_cb () returned non-integer"); self->upload_error = 1; return 1; } r = PyInt_AsLong(result); Py_DECREF(result); result = NULL; return r; thusly: if (result != NULL) { if (!PyInt_Check(result)) { { Py_DECREF(result); result = NULL; PyErr_SetString(PyExc_TypeError, "upload_cb () returned non-integer"); self->upload_error = 1; return 1; } } else { r = PyInt_AsLong(result); Py_DECREF(result); result = NULL; return r; } This way, in no case does the result get defererenced if NULL. At least here. :) Created attachment 563952 [details] Patch to protect against exception in callback (NULL) (In reply to comment #3) > if (result != NULL) { > if (!PyInt_Check(result)) { > { > Py_DECREF(result); > result = NULL; > PyErr_SetString(PyExc_TypeError, > "upload_cb () returned non-integer"); > self->upload_error = 1; > return 1; > } > } else { > r = PyInt_AsLong(result); > Py_DECREF(result); > result = NULL; > return r; > } Am I right in thinking you still have the trailing "return r" at the end? Isn't r still uninitialized at this point? Am attaching a patch that (I hope) covers this case. Applies cleanly, but untested though. No, my version went to the end of the function. So I suppose that would have left open the possibility of not returning anything. I'll try your patch. Maybe I'm foggy today, but how can I run this against my patched RPM? This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 19 development cycle. Changing version to '19'. (As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 19 development cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 19 End Of Life. Thank you.) More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora19 This message is a notice that Fedora 19 is now at end of life. Fedora has stopped maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 19. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '19'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 19 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. Fedora 19 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2015-01-06. Fedora 19 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. |