Re: Coverity Scan: Analysis completed for RTEMS-Newlib

[Joel Sherrill <joel@rtems.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1915 bytes --]

On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 9:32 AM Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@redhat.com>
wrote:

> On Nov 10 08:50, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > Hmmmm.. an email just before the one I forwarded shows 6 new defects were
> > added in the last commits. They appear to be the same issue I just
> > forwarded but in different scanf variants.
> >
> > CID 423229 (#1 of 1): Uninitialized scalar variable (UNINIT)2.
> > uninit_use_in_call: Using uninitialized value f._flags2 when calling
> > __ssvfiscanf_r. [show details
> > <
> https://scan3.scan.coverity.com/eventId=13202494-1&modelId=13202494-0&fileInstanceId=104130545&filePath=%2Fhome%2Fjoel%2Frtems-cron-coverity%2Fsourceware-mirror-newlib-cygwin%2Fnewlib%2Flibc%2Fstdio%2Fvfscanf.c&fileStart=400&fileEnd=1980
> >
> > ]
>
> Looks like a false positive.
>
> The ORIENT macro will set or reset the value of the _flags2 __SWID bit
> if the _flags __SORD bit isn't set.  It never is set at the start, so
> the _flags2 __SWID bit is always set.  And only then, the ORIENT macro
> will check the value.
>

Thanks. I will mark them as false positive.

What about the issue in the printf variants? Looks like similar code. Are
they
also false positives? This is from asiprintf.c

37  f._flags = __SWR | __SSTR | __SMBF;

1. assign_zero: Assigning: f._p = NULL.
38  f._bf._base = f._p = NULL;
39  f._bf._size = f._w = 0;
40  f._file = -1;  /* No file. */
41  va_start (ap, fmt);

CID 387497 (#2 of 2): Explicit null dereferenced (FORWARD_NULL)2.
var_deref_model: Passing &f to _svfiprintf_r, which dereferences null f._p.
 [show details
<https://scan3.scan.coverity.com/eventId=13202490-1&modelId=13202490-0&fileInstanceId=104130544&filePath=%2Fhome%2Fjoel%2Frtems-cron-coverity%2Fsourceware-mirror-newlib-cygwin%2Fnewlib%2Flibc%2Fstdio%2Fvfprintf.c&fileStart=650&fileEnd=1786>
]
42  ret = _svfiprintf_r (ptr, &f, fmt, ap);

>
>
> Corinna
>
>