On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 08:22:18AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 09:57:58AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 08:33:35PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
> > > The file migration code was allowing a possible -1 from a failed call
> > > to dup() to propagate
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 09:57:58AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 08:33:35PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
> > The file migration code was allowing a possible -1 from a failed call
> > to dup() to propagate into the new QIOFileChannel::fd before checking
> > for validity.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 08:33:35PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
> The file migration code was allowing a possible -1 from a failed call
> to dup() to propagate into the new QIOFileChannel::fd before checking
> for validity. Coverity doesn't like that, possibly due to the the
> lseek(-1, ...) call
The file migration code was allowing a possible -1 from a failed call
to dup() to propagate into the new QIOFileChannel::fd before checking
for validity. Coverity doesn't like that, possibly due to the the
lseek(-1, ...) call that would ensue before returning from the channel
creation routine.
