qemu-block
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PULL 5/8] commit: Fix use after free in c


From: Peter Maydell
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PULL 5/8] commit: Fix use after free in completion
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 18:09:22 +0100

On 13 June 2017 at 17:46, Kevin Wolf <address@hidden> wrote:
> Am 13.06.2017 um 18:12 hat Peter Maydell geschrieben:
>> On 7 June 2017 at 18:50, Kevin Wolf <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > diff --git a/block/commit.c b/block/commit.c
>> > index a3028b2..af6fa68 100644
>> > --- a/block/commit.c
>> > +++ b/block/commit.c
>> > @@ -89,6 +89,10 @@ static void commit_complete(BlockJob *job, void *opaque)
>> >      int ret = data->ret;
>> >      bool remove_commit_top_bs = false;
>> >
>> > +    /* Make sure overlay_bs and top stay around until 
>> > bdrv_set_backing_hd() */
>> > +    bdrv_ref(top);
>> > +    bdrv_ref(overlay_bs);
>> > +
>> >      /* Remove base node parent that still uses BLK_PERM_WRITE/RESIZE 
>> > before
>> >       * the normal backing chain can be restored. */
>> >      blk_unref(s->base);
>>
>> Hi -- coverity complains about this change, because bdrv_ref()
>> assumes that its argument is not NULL, but later on in commit_complete()
>> we have a check
>>     "if (overlay_bs && ...)"
>> which assumes its argument might be NULL. (CID 1376205)
>>
>> Which is correct?
>
> I saw the Coverity report and am looking into it. It's not completely
> clear to me yet which is correct, but I suspect it can be NULL.

Just a nudge on this one -- I don't think there's been a patch sent
to the list for this check-after-use ?

(It's one of just 7 coverity issues left which haven't had at least
a patch sent to the list now...)

thanks
-- PMM



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]