Hide Forgot
Description of problem: With the new build, two new coverity issues were discovered. Error: CPPCHECK_WARNING (CWE-456): vdo-e6ad32e1769484d59fc059163643a991da0799f9/utils/vdo/user/fileLayer.c:250: error[uninitvar]: Uninitialized variable: layer # 248| result = fileExists(layer->name, &exists); # 249| if (result != UDS_SUCCESS) { # 250|-> FREE(layer); # 251| return result; # 252| } Error: RESOURCE_LEAK (CWE-772): vdo-e6ad32e1769484d59fc059163643a991da0799f9/utils/vdo/user/vdo2lvm.c:135: open_fn: Returning handle opened by "open". [Note: The source code implementation of the function has been overridden by a user model.] vdo-e6ad32e1769484d59fc059163643a991da0799f9/utils/vdo/user/vdo2lvm.c:135: var_assign: Assigning: "fd" = handle returned from "open(fileName, 2178)". vdo-e6ad32e1769484d59fc059163643a991da0799f9/utils/vdo/user/vdo2lvm.c:147: noescape: Resource "fd" is not freed or pointed-to in "fcntl". vdo-e6ad32e1769484d59fc059163643a991da0799f9/utils/vdo/user/vdo2lvm.c:150: leaked_handle: Handle variable "fd" going out of scope leaks the handle. # 148| if (result != VDO_SUCCESS) { # 149| warnx("Unable to clear non-blocking flag for %s", fileName); # 150|-> return result; # 151| } # 152| Per Scliff: neither coverity item is of consequence. The first is a false positive that's trivial to silence, and the second is a genuine file descriptor leak (also trivial to fix) in the lvm conversion tool, which will exit shortly after leaking the descriptor, rendering it moot. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): vdo-6.2.5.62-14.el8 Actual results: Coverity Warnings Expected results: No Coverity Warnings
Verified with vdo-6.2.5.65-14.el8.
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 (kmod-kvdo bug fix and enhancement update), and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2021:4359