On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>
> On Aug 16, 2013, at 11:49 AM, pinto.e...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Hello jbj. I try to be carefull
> > Always. I have looked to the code first, and make check doesn't have
> regression.
> >
> > Sure it is a useless warning from the coverity
On Aug 11, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
>
> Not really something that's to encouraging for reporting any bugs nor
> submitting any patches..
>
I will assume you are too discouraged to discuss features, submit patches/bugs,
or otherwise participate in RPM development: it has bee
On Aug 16, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>
> So something like this is the correct fix to muzzle coverity whinings:
>
> xx = chdir(somedir)
> xx = chroot(somedir)
> xx = chroot("/")
---^^ chdir
> and It Really Doesn't Matter.
>
__
On Aug 16, 2013, at 8:52 AM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> Careful here ... Coverity static analysis likely just wants to see SOME chdir
> after a chroot.
>
> Check mock to see what the code in roto.c should do meaningfully.
>
OK, this isn't the right fix.
What coverity is expecting is this
On Aug 16, 2013, at 12:19 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>
> The reason for assigning to an otherwise unsigned pointer
--- unused of
course
> is to ensure 2 things:
> 1) the value is often preserved on stack for gdb analysis
>
On Aug 16, 2013, at 11:49 AM, pinto.e...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello jbj. I try to be carefull
> Always. I have looked to the code first, and make check doesn't have
> regression.
>
> Sure it is a useless warning from the coverity scan, almost from a security
> point of view. But dropping it don
Hello jbj. I try to be carefull
Always. I have looked to the code first, and make check doesn't have
regression.
Sure it is a useless warning from the coverity scan, almost from a security
point of view. But dropping it don't harm, apparently. As always free to
revert, no problem for me. But
Careful here too ... there are hundreds of
UNUSED reports.
I see no benefit to actually changing code to conform
with a mindless program (i.e. coverity) that disagrees with a deliberate
programming practice.
I have been marking issues like this intentional/insignificant/ignore and
assigning
to "
Careful here ... Coverity static analysis likely just wants to see SOME chdir
after a chroot.
Check mock to see what the code in roto.c should do meaningfully.
Even better (but much harder): compile and run roto.c (but this is development
work from like 2 years ago).
73 de Jeff
On Aug 16, 2013,
