Re: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for RTEMS-Newlib

[C Howland <cc1964t@gmail.com>]

>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Newlib <newlib-bounces+craig.howland=caci.com@sourceware.org> on
> behalf of Joel Sherrill <joel@rtems.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 1, 2022 7:59 AM
> *To:* Newlib <newlib@sourceware.org>
> *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: <scan-admin@coverity.com>
> Date: Tue, Mar 1, 2022, 12:25 AM
> Subject: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for RTEMS-Newlib
> To: <joel.sherrill@gmail.com>
>
>
> 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.
                                    Craig