On 15/03/2017 08:56, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> When more complexity was added to facilitate inlining, Coverity
>> lost the ability to use the address_space_rw model for
>> address_space_read/write.
>
> Got the commit hash of the change?
>
>> This causes false positive defects when Coverity sees
>> a length-8 write in address_space_read and a length-4
>> (e.g. int*) buffer to read into. As long as the size of
>> the buffer is okay, this is a false positive.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> scripts/coverity-model.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/scripts/coverity-model.c b/scripts/coverity-model.c
>> index ee5bf9d..2e30150 100644
>> --- a/scripts/coverity-model.c
>> +++ b/scripts/coverity-model.c
>> @@ -79,6 +79,25 @@ MemTxResult address_space_rw(AddressSpace *as, hwaddr
>> addr, MemTxAttrs attrs,
>> return result;
>> }
>>
>> +MemTxResult address_space_read(AddressSpace *as, hwaddr addr,
>> + MemTxAttrs attrs,
>> + uint8_t *buf, int len)
>> +{
>> + MemTxResult result;
>> + __bufwrite(buf, len);
>> + return result;
>> +}
>> +
>> +MemTxResult address_space_write(AddressSpace *as, hwaddr addr,
>> + MemTxAttrs attrs,
>> + const uint8_t *buf, int len)
>> +{
>> + MemTxResult result;
>> + __bufread(buf, len);
>> + return result;
>> +}
>> +
>> +
>> /* Tainting */
>>
>> typedef struct {} name2keysym_t;
>
> Preferably with the commit hash of the change that necessitates this
> update mentioned in the commit message:
> Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>
>
> I can stick this in a miscellaneous pull request due later today.
Commit eb7eeb8 ("memory: split address_space_read and
address_space_write", 2015-12-17). On the other hand, the model for
address_space_rw is not needed anymore, so I'll send v2.
Paolo
