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.
