On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 04:57:13PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 at 11:04, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Commit 747421e949fc1eb3ba66b5fcccdb7ba051918241 ("Implements Backend
> > Program conventions for vhost-user-scsi") introduced fd-passing support
> > as part of implementing the vhost-user backend program conventions.
> >
> > When fd passing is used the UNIX domain socket path is NULL and we must
> > not call unlink(2).
> >
> > Fixes: Coverity CID 1488353
> > Fixes: 747421e949fc1eb3ba66b5fcccdb7ba051918241 ("Implements Backend
> > Program conventions for vhost-user-scsi")
> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > contrib/vhost-user-scsi/vhost-user-scsi.c | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/contrib/vhost-user-scsi/vhost-user-scsi.c
> > b/contrib/vhost-user-scsi/vhost-user-scsi.c
> > index b2c0f98253..08335d4b2b 100644
> > --- a/contrib/vhost-user-scsi/vhost-user-scsi.c
> > +++ b/contrib/vhost-user-scsi/vhost-user-scsi.c
> > @@ -433,7 +433,9 @@ out:
> > if (vdev_scsi) {
> > g_main_loop_unref(vdev_scsi->loop);
> > g_free(vdev_scsi);
> > - unlink(opt_socket_path);
> > + if (opt_socket_path) {
> > + unlink(opt_socket_path);
> > + }
> > }
>
> Shouldn't this check-and-unlink be one level up, outside the
> "if (vdev_scsi)" ? There are error exit paths which get us to
> the 'out:' label where we have called unix_sock_new() but
> not yet done the g_new0() of vdev_scsi(). The only thing
> that needs to be guarded by "if (vdev_scsi)" is the
> g_main_loop_unref() (the g_free of vdev_scsi itself could
> be inside or outside, since g_free(NULL) is a nop).Sorry, I was offline last week due to illness. Now I'm back and agree with what you found. I have sent a v2. Stefan
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
