From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42187) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wntuw-0004WX-EW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 May 2014 14:10:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wntuq-0000HL-4m for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 May 2014 14:10:06 -0400 Received: from isrv.corpit.ru ([86.62.121.231]:45119) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wntup-0000H7-UA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 May 2014 14:10:00 -0400 Message-ID: <537F8EF4.9000803@msgid.tls.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 22:09:56 +0400 From: Michael Tokarev MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1400844279-1685-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <1400844279-1685-7-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1400844279-1685-7-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 6/7] libcacard/vcard_emul_nss: Assert vreaderOpt isn't null List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: alevy@redhat.com 23.05.2014 15:24, Markus Armbruster =D0=C9=DB=C5=D4: > It's not locally obvious, and Coverity can't see it either. >=20 > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster > Reviewed-by: Alon Levy > --- > libcacard/vcard_emul_nss.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >=20 > diff --git a/libcacard/vcard_emul_nss.c b/libcacard/vcard_emul_nss.c > index 2048917..4f55e44 100644 > --- a/libcacard/vcard_emul_nss.c > +++ b/libcacard/vcard_emul_nss.c > @@ -1181,6 +1181,7 @@ vcard_emul_options(const char *args) > vreaderOpt =3D g_renew(VirtualReaderOptions, opts->vre= ader, > reader_count); > } > + assert(vreaderOpt); > opts->vreader =3D vreaderOpt; > vreaderOpt =3D &vreaderOpt[opts->vreader_count]; > vreaderOpt->name =3D g_strndup(name, name_length); Shouldn't the assignment be moved up one line into the if {} statement instead? Sigh, thats a second comment about this code... :) Thanks, /mjt