On 30 May 2017 at 10:09, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 10:01:55AM -0700, Joe Stringer wrote: >> On 26 May 2017 at 22:07, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Coverity says that, in this test at the end of revalidate_ukey__(), >> > 'netflow' is always NULL: >> > >> > if (netflow && result == UKEY_DELETE) { >> > netflow_flow_clear(netflow, &ctx.flow); >> > } >> > >> > I suspect that it is right. >> > >> > This is from >> > https://scan3.coverity.com/reports.htm#v16889/p10449/fileInstanceId=14762999&defectInstanceId=4304056&mergedDefectId=179567, >> > which I hope is more or less publicly accessible. >> >> Looks like it works on an account whitelist system. I've requested to >> look at it. > > I sent you an invitation. > >> > Any thoughts? >> >> The address of 'netflow' is stored into the reval_context, which goes >> through xlate_key() and xlate_lookup() and presumably is populated >> there, so that if the translation determines that the flow should be >> deleted, then this code should execute to clear the netflow flow. Its >> usage is definitely more convoluted than I'd prefer. > > OK. If you think it's correct, then that's fine. It's even better, of > course, if we can make it more obviously correct.
I believe it's correct. I don't have any ideas to make it more obvious other than perhaps to add a comment somewhere to highlight that this is how it's populated. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
