From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [217.216.95.84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A1BE3FFFA7 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2026 21:34:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786570482; cv=none; b=jIuIeD0G3JCXCpl6eOA2X1cTRhGpV1Io4WRTAxvJNdL6CWyE73bjTe6817Dce0iqMj/ALxngghdQGACl1rQfmnRl4EKlUbFJCtXJQ96NYM0Fmz3Z6b2UviHa7bFENzw/z2oMsI52paNLAS39+TDNWjjut06whdDE4NLPPYCe+LY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786570482; c=relaxed/simple; bh=dNt2dZI3xpM7HgP0Q5iCGpFZQlyfiusMJcAqNT+hEWU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=M/48JNfRJg4wrY2UGe8bLYcb6eJtbV4fDo7dmWsk6uF1si6T3AJXctqjj4EhEWtEHtgLuIwGaaeeOIlesf1qdTrbiFdQW0ZIQUFkwM7UibONSB240HVZthmRWBtJJjPHMUncjIxLzQ1GnofDvltLGEKB4//4NGOkmXgMFkk7QYs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b=A8qWB+QC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b="A8qWB+QC" Received: (qmail 44862 invoked by uid 106); 12 Aug 2026 21:34:39 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=peff.net; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=20240930; bh=dNt2dZI3xpM7HgP0Q5iCGpFZQlyfiusMJcAqNT+hEWU=; b=A8qWB+QCuD1Yke2IJwy/+SQqoz370evrTZe1OLuBV0LREveEnHKw6gAiALk9kzWM1Pn+pg8sm2r+OxvV7vkIGRL4xloxQNhF4gO1TuRUuHn4kfQIXNPdvaMXtMBwZ9h5tgKJAKjhG/xC2gzeL5PUSg4Wj0EV2O+KqhvDdvZ+j9MfDZUvsc/NbGdzzQT0Hz0DpuGqg7gkTGW2+Ef5khVZmMN2yg7rFWIzWeR2EuaT5LGrIiNRLmxAfn5iAxaJwo1RP9dHS1MxTprDQyX3arHLFTmanOgxzkye3njUQbWkK4IwCiqlgdfyLI6bO5cME0bfQBhG+RFtnbvkWEvtg1zTmQ== Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2026 21:34:39 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 31435 invoked by uid 111); 12 Aug 2026 21:34:39 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 12 Aug 2026 17:34:39 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 17:34:38 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Patrick Steinhardt , Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/12] coverity: fix unchecked returns Message-ID: <20260812213438.GC152730@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:29:33AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" > writes: > > > This is the next batch of fixes in response to issues reported by Coverity. > > > > Changes since v2: > > > > * Added a new commit to handle block-writer initialization errors (instead > > of ignoring them). > > * The bw->zstream attribute is now also deinitialized in the error case, as > > suggested by Junio. > > * The commit message of "reftable/block: check deflateInit() return value" > > was rephrased to stop suggesting that silent corruption by zlib would be > > possible before that patch: This turned out to be provably incorrect. > > * When aborting the bisect because dup2() failed, a left-over saved_stdout > > is now also cleaned up. > > Everything looks sensible. I am fine with declaring victory, but > does anyone want to second it? I cannot claim to have read all of the patches carefully, but this version addressed the sole concern I raised, and in the few other patches I glanced over I didn't see anything to complain about. So maybe consider that a weak second. :) -Peff