On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 09:27:45AM -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
Coverity complains that the comparison:
if (nfds nfds ((int)!!sock_path + (int)!!sock_path_ro))
could mean 'sock_path' is NULL. Later in virNetSocketNewListenUNIX
there's a direct dereference of path in the error path:
if
On 09/15/2014 04:36 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 09:27:45AM -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
Coverity complains that the comparison:
if (nfds nfds ((int)!!sock_path + (int)!!sock_path_ro))
could mean 'sock_path' is NULL. Later in virNetSocketNewListenUNIX
there's a
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 07:49:09AM -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
On 09/15/2014 04:36 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 09:27:45AM -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
Coverity complains that the comparison:
if (nfds nfds ((int)!!sock_path + (int)!!sock_path_ro))
could mean 'sock_path'
Coverity complains that the comparison:
if (nfds nfds ((int)!!sock_path + (int)!!sock_path_ro))
could mean 'sock_path' is NULL. Later in virNetSocketNewListenUNIX
there's a direct dereference of path in the error path:
if (path[0] != '@')
A bit of sleuthing proves that upon entry to
