On 13 June 2017 at 17:46, Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote: > Am 13.06.2017 um 18:12 hat Peter Maydell geschrieben: >> On 7 June 2017 at 18:50, Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > diff --git a/block/commit.c b/block/commit.c >> > index a3028b2..af6fa68 100644 >> > --- a/block/commit.c >> > +++ b/block/commit.c >> > @@ -89,6 +89,10 @@ static void commit_complete(BlockJob *job, void *opaque) >> > int ret = data->ret; >> > bool remove_commit_top_bs = false; >> > >> > + /* Make sure overlay_bs and top stay around until >> > bdrv_set_backing_hd() */ >> > + bdrv_ref(top); >> > + bdrv_ref(overlay_bs); >> > + >> > /* Remove base node parent that still uses BLK_PERM_WRITE/RESIZE >> > before >> > * the normal backing chain can be restored. */ >> > blk_unref(s->base); >> >> Hi -- coverity complains about this change, because bdrv_ref() >> assumes that its argument is not NULL, but later on in commit_complete() >> we have a check >> "if (overlay_bs && ...)" >> which assumes its argument might be NULL. (CID 1376205) >> >> Which is correct? > > I saw the Coverity report and am looking into it. It's not completely > clear to me yet which is correct, but I suspect it can be NULL.
Just a nudge on this one -- I don't think there's been a patch sent to the list for this check-after-use ? (It's one of just 7 coverity issues left which haven't had at least a patch sent to the list now...) thanks -- PMM
