Thanks for the explanation.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 5:17 PM Peter Maydell
wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 20:39, Mansour Ahmadi wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for looking into this, Peter. I agree that static analysis has
> false positives; that's why I called them potential. Basically, they are
>
the following two potential missing checks by static analysis
> and detecting inconsistencies on the source code of QEMU. here is the
> result:
>
> Hi. Can you provide more details of your analysis, please? "Maybe
> there's an issue
> at this line" is not terribly hel
On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 20:39, Mansour Ahmadi wrote:
>
> Thank you for looking into this, Peter. I agree that static analysis has
> false positives; that's why I called them potential. Basically, they are
> found based on code similarity so I might be wrong and I need a second
> opinion from
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 at 22:04, Mansour Ahmadi wrote:
>
> Hi QEMU developers,
>
> I noticed the following two potential missing checks by static analysis and
> detecting inconsistencies on the source code of QEMU. here is the result:
Hi. Can you provide more details of your a
Hi QEMU developers,
I noticed the following two potential missing checks by static analysis and
detecting inconsistencies on the source code of QEMU. here is the result:
1)
Missing check on offset:
https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/c532b954d96f96d361ca31308f75f1b95bd4df76/disas/arm.c#L2728-L2733
