Le 03/11/2020 à 16:40, Alistair Francis a écrit :
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 11:29 PM Laurent Vivier <laur...@vivier.eu> wrote:
>>
>> Le 02/11/2020 à 19:15, Peter Maydell a écrit :
>>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 11:31, Laurent Vivier <laur...@vivier.eu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@wdc.com>
>>>>
>>>> Add support for host and target futex_time64. If futex_time64 exists on
>>>> the host we try that first before falling back to the standard futex
>>>> syscall.
>>>
>>> Hi; I dunno why Coverity's only just noticed this, but in
>>> CID 1432339 it points out:
>>>
>>>> +#if defined(TARGET_NR_futex_time64)
>>>> +static int do_futex_time64(target_ulong uaddr, int op, int val,
>>>> target_ulong timeout,
>>>> + target_ulong uaddr2, int val3)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct timespec ts, *pts;
>>>> + int base_op;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* ??? We assume FUTEX_* constants are the same on both host
>>>> + and target. */
>>>> +#ifdef FUTEX_CMD_MASK
>>>> + base_op = op & FUTEX_CMD_MASK;
>>>> +#else
>>>> + base_op = op;
>>>> +#endif
>>>> + switch (base_op) {
>>>> + case FUTEX_WAIT:
>>>> + case FUTEX_WAIT_BITSET:
>>>> + if (timeout) {
>>>> + pts = &ts;
>>>> + target_to_host_timespec64(pts, timeout);
>>>
>>> ...that here we call target_to_host_timespec64(), which can
>>> fail with -TARGET_EFAULT, but (unlike all the other times we call
>>> the function) we aren't checking its return value.
>>> Is there missing error handling code here ?
>>>
>>
>> I think the code is like that because this is a cut&paste of function
>> do_futex() witl "s/timespec/timespec64/".
>>
>> And yes I think we should check for the return value.
>> I'm going to fix that.
>
> Thanks! Let me know if you want me to do it and I can send a patch instead.
>
If you have time, please do.
Thanks
Laurent
