On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:21:12PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote: > On Tue, 30 May 2017 10:42:12 +0100 > Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:05:29AM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote: > > > The following changes since commit > > > 9964e96dc9999cf7f7c936ee854a795415d19b60: > > > > > > Merge remote-tracking branch 'jasowang/tags/net-pull-request' into > > > staging (2017-05-23 15:01:31 +0100) > > > > > > are available in the git repository at: > > > > > > https://github.com/gkurz/qemu.git tags/for-upstream > > > > > > for you to fetch changes up to f0a4da86cff2e600255324793daddd7ce59b9862: > > > > > > 9pfs: local: metadata file for the VirtFS root (2017-05-25 10:30:14 > > > +0200) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Various bugfixes and code cleanups. Most notably, it fixes metadata > > > handling in > > > mapped-file security mode (especially for the virtfs root). > > > > Please fix the compiler warning reported by patchew. > > > > In file included from > /var/tmp/patchew-tester-tmp-3cnydauu/src/hw/9pfs/9p-local.c:18:0: > /var/tmp/patchew-tester-tmp-3cnydauu/src/hw/9pfs/9p-local.c: In function > ‘local_set_mapped_file_attrat’: > /var/tmp/patchew-tester-tmp-3cnydauu/src/hw/9pfs/9p-util.h:19:5: error: > ‘map_dirfd’ may be used uninitialized in this function > [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized] > close(fd); > ^~~~~~~~~ > /var/tmp/patchew-tester-tmp-3cnydauu/src/hw/9pfs/9p-local.c:235:9: note: > ‘map_dirfd’ was declared here > int map_dirfd, map_fd; > ^~~~~~~~~ > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > > This is a false positive: map_dirfd is necessarily initialized, but I guess > gcc isn't smart enough to see that :-\ > > It is acceptable to close(-1) so I guess I'll just do: > > - int map_dirfd, map_fd; > + int map_dirfd = -1, map_fd;
By 'acceptable' I guess you mean it'll return EBADF. I would not be surprised, however, if coverity were to then complain if it sees code path where we pass -1 to close, since it is indicative of a potential bug. So in addition to your initialization, also protecting the close() call with '!= -1' condition is a safer approach. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
