On 2014/11/27 20:47, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> <arei.gong...@huawei.com> writes:
>
>> From: Gonglei <arei.gong...@huawei.com>
>>
>> Coverity report:
>> (94) Event open_fn: Returning handle opened by function "proxy_socket(char
>> const *, uid_t, gid_t)". [details]
>> (95) Event var_assign: Assigning: "sock" = handle returned from
>> "proxy_socket(sock_name, own_u, own_g)".
>> (103) Event leaked_handle: Handle variable "sock" going out of scope leaks
>> the handle.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gonglei <arei.gong...@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> fsdev/virtfs-proxy-helper.c | 3 +++
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/fsdev/virtfs-proxy-helper.c b/fsdev/virtfs-proxy-helper.c
>> index c1da2d7..2d72def 100644
>> --- a/fsdev/virtfs-proxy-helper.c
>> +++ b/fsdev/virtfs-proxy-helper.c
>> @@ -1150,6 +1150,9 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>
>> process_requests(sock);
>> error:
>> + if (sock_name && sock >= 0) {
>> + close(sock);
>> + }
>> do_log(LOG_INFO, "Done\n");
>> closelog();
>> return 0;
>
> Why if sock_name? What about sock gotten from -f?
>
Thanks for your review, Makus :)
Because only sock_name is non-NULL, the sock returned from
"proxy_socket(sock_name, own_u, own_g)", then will leak fd.
If sock gotten from -f, maybe the caller will free it IMO.
> If sock >= 0 is pointless, too, but needed to hush up Coverity.
You mean do not check sock_name is NULL or not?
Regards,
-Gonglei
