On 5 August 2016 at 12:19, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes:
>
>> The unlink() function doesn't accept a NULL pointer, so
>> don't pass it one. Spotted by the clang sanitizer.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> tests/hd-geo-test.c | 4 +++-
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/hd-geo-test.c b/tests/hd-geo-test.c
>> index 12ee392..6176e81 100644
>> --- a/tests/hd-geo-test.c
>> +++ b/tests/hd-geo-test.c
>> @@ -416,7 +416,9 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>> ret = g_test_run();
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < backend_last; i++) {
>> - unlink(img_file_name[i]);
>> + if (img_file_name[i]) {
>> + unlink(img_file_name[i]);
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> return ret;
>
> And what terrible, terrible things unlink()'s going to do when passed a
> null pointer? Turns out the same scary terrible thing it has always
> done: return -1 and set errno = EFAULT.
Feel free to send a bug report to the glibc folks saying
they shouldn't have marked it as __nonnull((1)).
thanks
-- PMM
