On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 at 16:05, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > > The POSIX spec for sockaddr_in says that implementations are allowed > to have implementation-dependent extensions controlled by extra > fields in the struct, and that the way to ensure these are not > accidentally activated is to zero out the whole data structure. > We have several places in our codebase where we don't zero-init > sockaddr_in structs and so (at least in theory) might run into this. > Coverity spotted the ones in the net code (CID 1005338); the > others in this series I found by looking at all uses of sockaddr_in. > (The gdbstub patch changes also a sockaddr_un use, for symmetry.) > > Thanks to Eric for the analysis of what the spec says and why > Coverity is correct here. > > thanks > -- PMM > > Peter Maydell (4): > net: Zero sockaddr_in in parse_host_port() > gdbstub: Zero-initialize sockaddr structs > tests/qtest/ipmi-bt-test: Zero-initialize sockaddr struct > tests/tcg/multiarch/linux-test: Zero-initialize sockaddr structs
I'll take this series via target-arm.next unless anybody objects. thanks -- PMM
