Le mar. 23 janv. 2024, 17:44, Daniel Kiper <dki...@net-space.pl> a écrit :
> Mate, > > Next time please respond to all people/addresses in the original > email... > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 02:09:38PM +0000, Mate Kukri wrote: > > Dear Alec, and grub-devel, > > > > I haven't checked the specific code in question, but do we really want > > to be removing such null-assignments? (Thinking about multiple patches > > exactly like this). > > > > In correct code, they are of course redundant by definition, however > > their intended purpose is that if the code happens to be incorrect, > > they turn use-after-free bugs into zero page accesses. > > > > Since static analysis of a language like C is inherently conservative, > > it is entirely possible that it is detecting the redundant assignment, > > but not the use after free it would have prevented. > > We know the Coverity makes mistakes. So, we carefully check its reports. > These ones are not exceptions. Here the Coverity is correct and it is > safe to remove redundant code. I expect somebody was changing the code > at some point and forgot to drop surplus assignments. > Nope. It was to keep an invariant and ensure we don't double-free
_______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
