From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:59911)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1T8ZsM-0000Od-C3
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 12:51:54 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1T8ZsI-0002Me-CO
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 12:51:50 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:22314)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1T8ZsI-0002MX-2f
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 12:51:46 -0400
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 13:52:32 -0300
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20120903135232.14a42e3a@doriath.home>
In-Reply-To: <5044DFB2.4020206@weilnetz.de>
References: <1346484639-15141-1-git-send-email-sw@weilnetz.de>
	<504454E0.4000606@redhat.com>
	<20120903133412.77cc4efa@doriath.home>
	<5044DFB2.4020206@weilnetz.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qapi: Fix potential NULL pointer segfault
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:49:54 +0200
Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de> wrote:

> Am 03.09.2012 18:34, schrieb Luiz Capitulino:
> > On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 08:57:36 +0200
> > Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Il 01/09/2012 09:30, Stefan Weil ha scritto:
> >>> Report from smatch:
> >>>
> >>> qapi-visit.c:1640 visit_type_BlockdevAction(8) error:
> >>>   we previously assumed 'obj' could be null (see line 1639)
> >>> qapi-visit.c:2432 visit_type_NetClientOptions(8) error:
> >>>   we previously assumed 'obj' could be null (see line 2431)
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
> >>> ---
> >>>   scripts/qapi-visit.py |    2 +-
> >>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/scripts/qapi-visit.py b/scripts/qapi-visit.py
> >>> index 2afc5c0..1a669f3 100644
> >>> --- a/scripts/qapi-visit.py
> >>> +++ b/scripts/qapi-visit.py
> >>> @@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ void visit_type_%(name)s(Visitor *m, %(name)s ** obj, const char *name, Error **
> >>>       if (!error_is_set(errp)) {
> >>>           visit_start_struct(m, (void **)obj, "%(name)s", name, sizeof(%(name)s), &err);
> >>>           if (!err) {
> >>> -            if (!obj || *obj) {
> >>> +            if (obj && *obj) {
> >>>                   visit_type_%(name)sKind(m, &(*obj)->kind, "type", &err);
> >>>                   if (!err) {
> >>>                       switch ((*obj)->kind) {
> >>>
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> >
> > Is this for 1.2?
> >
> > Although the fix is pretty obvious, it doesn't seem possible to trigger the
> > segfault today and I believe we're only accepting true bug fixes at this point
> > (ie. two days from the release).
> 
> As long as nobody has a scenario which triggers the bug,
> there is no need to apply that patch before 1.2 is released.
> 
> That's why I did not add "for 1.2" to the subject line.

Applied to qmp-next, thanks.