Julian Elischer wrote:
Ted Unangst wrote:
these are results from running Coverity's analysis over Freebsd 4.10
kernel.
two improper loops:
if_ef.c:566 and atapi-all.c
ng_socket.c: possible double free of resp 815 and 870, depending on
caller context. is this possible?
I'm not seeing it..
Can
M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ted Unangst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: aha_isa.c: aha_isa_attach: aha_free free "aha", can't use it
: afterwards, lots of examples.
aha_free doesn't actually free the aha, it just tears down the dma for
the device. So the stur
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ted Unangst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: > Ted Unangst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > : aha_isa.c: aha_isa_attach: aha_free free "aha", can't use it
: > : afterwards, lots of exam
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ted Unangst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: aha_isa.c: aha_isa_attach: aha_free free "aha", can't use it
: afterwards, lots of examples.
aha_free doesn't actually free the aha, it just tears down the dma for
the device. So the sturct aha_softc * that's
Ted Unangst wrote:
these are results from running Coverity's analysis over Freebsd 4.10
kernel.
two improper loops:
if_ef.c:566 and atapi-all.c
ng_socket.c: possible double free of resp 815 and 870, depending on
caller context. is this possible?
I'm not seeing it..
Can you show the lines in t
these are results from running Coverity's analysis over Freebsd 4.10 kernel.
two improper loops:
if_ef.c:566 and atapi-all.c
ng_socket.c: possible double free of resp 815 and 870, depending on
caller context. is this possible?
if_bfe.c: double call to bfe_release_resources will free lots of stu
>
> I wonder if the same approach relating to memory allocation and free
> checking via static analysis could be applied to locking and unlocking of
> locks? I.e.:
Yes. See Dawson's papers. That is one of the examples given. Use after free is
one of the stock checkers. I don't think that there
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Thursday 19 February 2004 08:43 pm, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > Hi. These are some bugs found by Coverity in a static analysis run on the
> > FreeBSD kernel. All these are use after free bugs.
>
> Thanks for the excellent bug repor
At 18:40 20/02/2004, John Baldwin wrote:
On Thursday 19 February 2004 08:43 pm, Ted Unangst wrote:
> Hi. These are some bugs found by Coverity in a static analysis run on the
> FreeBSD kernel. All these are use after free bugs.
Thanks for the excellent bug reports!
For what it's
On Thursday 19 February 2004 08:43 pm, Ted Unangst wrote:
> Hi. These are some bugs found by Coverity in a static analysis run on the
> FreeBSD kernel. All these are use after free bugs.
Thanks for the excellent bug reports!
--
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< h
Hi. These are some bugs found by Coverity in a static analysis run on the
FreeBSD kernel. All these are use after free bugs.
# New errors.
#
-
[UNINSPECTED]
X [BUG]
X [FALSE]
X
11 matches
Mail list logo