From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33780)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1WQAXz-0006Ry-Ny
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 03:04:28 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1WQAXr-0007nG-9k
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 03:04:19 -0400
Sender: Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53294155.8040403@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:03:49 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1395162223-28733-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<874n2vcpu9.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
In-Reply-To: <874n2vcpu9.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] scripts: add sample model file for
	Coverity Scan
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: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Il 18/03/2014 19:40, Markus Armbruster ha scritto:
> > +void *
> > +g_malloc (size_t n_bytes)
> > +{
> > +    void *mem;
> > +    __coverity_negative_sink__((ssize_t) n_bytes);
> > +    mem = malloc(n_bytes == 0 ? 1 : n_bytes);
> > +    if (!mem) __coverity_panic__ ();
> > +    return mem;
> > +}
>
> This isn't quite honest: g_malloc(0) yields NULL.  Same for the other
> allocation functions.

Oh, I didn't know that.

It probably would make static analysis a bit less powerful or will 
return more false positives.  The NULL return for realloc (in the "free" 
case) already causes some.  So I'm undecided between a more correct 
model and a more selective one (with a fat comment).

Paolo