Thomas Huth writes:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 15:55:27 +0100
> Markus Armbruster wrote:
> ...
>>
>> == Triaged / Bug ==
>>
>> These are worrying. Something wrong with my new model?
>>
>> hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c:195: leaked_storage: Variable "sei_cont"
>> going out of scope leaks the storage it p
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 22/01/2015 15:55, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> == Look like a bug ==
>>
>> blockdev-nbd.c:35: leaked_handle: Handle variable "fd" going out of
>> scope leaks the handle.
>
> It's a false positive.
>
> After nbd_client_new calls nbd_send_negotiate, either it returns or
>
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 15:55:27 +0100
Markus Armbruster wrote:
...
>
> == Triaged / Bug ==
>
> These are worrying. Something wrong with my new model?
>
> hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c:195: leaked_storage: Variable "sei_cont" going out of
> scope leaks the storage it points to.
Did you already include
On 22/01/2015 15:55, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> == Look like a bug ==
>
> blockdev-nbd.c:35: leaked_handle: Handle variable "fd" going out of scope
> leaks the handle.
It's a false positive.
After nbd_client_new calls nbd_send_negotiate, either it returns or
client escapes via QTAILQ_INSERT_T
Local scan results look great on first glance. Comparing summary.txt, I get
-2 TAINTED_STRING
1 MISSING_LOCK
1 REVERSE_NEGATIVE
-4 FORWARD_NULL
-6 CHECKED_RETURN
-21 RESOURCE_LEAK
4 TAINTED_SCALAR
-2 NEGATIVE_RETURNS
-3 NULL_RETURNS
A closer examina
In current versions of GLib, g_new() may expand into g_malloc_n(),
which we don't model. When it does, Coverity can't see the memory
allocation. Similarly for g_new0(), g_renew(), g_try_new(),
g_try_new0(), g_try_renew().
Model g_try_malloc_n(), g_malloc_n(), g_try_malloc0_n(),
g_malloc0_n(), g_
