From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf1-f53.google.com (mail-lf1-f53.google.com [209.85.167.53]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 791553858C78 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 20:43:53 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 791553858C78 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=rtems.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-lf1-f53.google.com with SMTP id y24so28938279lfg.1 for ; Tue, 01 Mar 2022 12:43:53 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6/kmQI632klN34D1F3LKL/BhbelqzAd0iW0aWSQRZJ0=; b=vheiQAnmowRLqAmh7pMjF/ojQIa7aojyMnsT9Q/dz/ZX2l5Jk5Of5Zx7dwyaa/+ldl vArxCFUTeyfBIu7IK/3/nvgx4khUJVHe8lr2ZToL+k3gxNGghRLltJJwnbqNW1MNgOp7 MXbKcsnwe5vFn+nlIvW3lIYUshVU9dpyWp6Qx581qv6JiKLOilTRsuG9nqlsI7w2B1kd B0Fu4MFHSyg9+YS0mgKbN1sVtM3TSt2e97JR80YP1fYltJdxUsBCVgAYB36ZoV3OXD3L GC4adRqXv4cho22xpL2663Mf/csoBdJG0jOMTlUsVGQsrSdq8nzrkR1pUTaxQU9Og4NE EdUg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532iHz3miWX2G5keVv56Dkf5v7jO7kjC3UakCTcJUogtBNeOaFpi 8juNh6WKE6dwm1/TrwgTvTC24Mk7pBv5mQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwyQoLk2mL6gRExWIPkDoOaH0wgU83OvspfrfZhXXdMKRdL8SbCUK9KKLZBLtN7WDiaifjxRA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:34ce:b0:443:1bbb:cfe7 with SMTP id w14-20020a05651234ce00b004431bbbcfe7mr17187690lfr.24.1646167431513; Tue, 01 Mar 2022 12:43:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf1-f53.google.com (mail-lf1-f53.google.com. [209.85.167.53]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p1-20020a05651238c100b004431bbcb300sm1663488lft.166.2022.03.01.12.43.51 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 01 Mar 2022 12:43:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-f53.google.com with SMTP id t13so16908071lfd.9 for ; Tue, 01 Mar 2022 12:43:51 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:368a:b0:442:3bc8:93eb with SMTP id d10-20020a056512368a00b004423bc893ebmr16341409lfs.2.1646167430847; Tue, 01 Mar 2022 12:43:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <621dbc6e5b779_bb4ce2b0cf36619a0847b1@prd-scan-dashboard-0.mail> In-Reply-To: Reply-To: joel@rtems.org From: Joel Sherrill Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 14:43:39 -0600 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for RTEMS-Newlib To: C Howland Cc: Newlib X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3031.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN, FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, HTML_MESSAGE, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: newlib@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Newlib mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2022 20:43:55 -0000 On Tue, Mar 1, 2022, 1:31 PM C Howland wrote: > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Newlib on > > behalf of Joel Sherrill > > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 1, 2022 7:59 AM > > *To:* Newlib > > *Subject:* Fwd: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for RTEMS-Newlib > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > The RTEMS Projects runs Coverity Scan when Newlib changes. > > > > Not sure who committed something that triggered these but overnight 6 new > > defects showed up. Most look to be NULL dereferences. > > > > --joel > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > > From: > > Date: Tue, Mar 1, 2022, 12:25 AM > > Subject: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for RTEMS-Newlib > > To: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to RTEMS-Newlib > > found with Coverity Scan. > > > > 6 new defect(s) introduced to RTEMS-Newlib found with Coverity Scan. > > > > > > New defect(s) Reported-by: Coverity Scan > > Showing 6 of 6 defect(s) > > > > > > ** CID 387497: (FORWARD_NULL) > > > > > /home/joel/rtems-cron-coverity/sourceware-mirror-newlib-cygwin/newlib/libc/stdio/asiprintf.c: > > 46 in _asiprintf_r() > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > *** CID 387497: (FORWARD_NULL) > > > > > /home/joel/rtems-cron-coverity/sourceware-mirror-newlib-cygwin/newlib/libc/stdio/asiprintf.c: > > 46 in _asiprintf_r() > > 40 f._file = -1; /* No file. */ > > 41 va_start (ap, fmt); > > 42 ret = _svfiprintf_r (ptr, &f, fmt, ap); > > 43 va_end (ap); > > 44 if (ret >= 0) > > 45 { > > >>> CID 387497: (FORWARD_NULL) > > >>> Dereferencing null pointer "f._p". > > 46 *f._p = 0; > > 47 *strp = (char *) f._bf._base; > > 48 } > > 49 return (ret); > > 50 } > > 51 > > > > Joel: > In a quick look nothing related to these has changed. And looking > specifically at this one complaint (which looks to be representative of all > the rest), the complaint is spurious. The check for the return being >= 0 > means that _p has been set by the called function. > Weird. Shouldn't have popped up suddenly. Just passing along. If you don't pay attention when they are new, they age badly. Thanks. Craig >