diff mbox series

block: Remove unnecessary NULL check in bdrv_pad_request()

Message ID 20240327192750.204197-1-kwolf@redhat.com
State New
Headers show
Series block: Remove unnecessary NULL check in bdrv_pad_request() | expand

Commit Message

Kevin Wolf March 27, 2024, 7:27 p.m. UTC
Coverity complains that the check introduced in commit 3f934817 suggests
that qiov could be NULL and we dereference it before reaching the check.
In fact, all of the callers pass a non-NULL pointer, so just remove the
misleading check.

Resolves: Coverity CID 1542668
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
---
 block/io.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Fiona Ebner March 28, 2024, 10:35 a.m. UTC | #1
Am 27.03.24 um 20:27 schrieb Kevin Wolf:
> Coverity complains that the check introduced in commit 3f934817 suggests
> that qiov could be NULL and we dereference it before reaching the check.
> In fact, all of the callers pass a non-NULL pointer, so just remove the
> misleading check.
> 
> Resolves: Coverity CID 1542668
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>

Reviewed-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>

Thank you for the fix,
Fiona
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé March 28, 2024, 11:24 a.m. UTC | #2
On 27/3/24 20:27, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Coverity complains that the check introduced in commit 3f934817 suggests
> that qiov could be NULL and we dereference it before reaching the check.
> In fact, all of the callers pass a non-NULL pointer, so just remove the
> misleading check.
> 
> Resolves: Coverity CID 1542668
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
> ---
>   block/io.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé April 2, 2024, 10:53 a.m. UTC | #3
On 27/3/24 20:27, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Coverity complains that the check introduced in commit 3f934817 suggests
> that qiov could be NULL and we dereference it before reaching the check.
> In fact, all of the callers pass a non-NULL pointer, so just remove the
> misleading check.
> 
> Resolves: Coverity CID 1542668
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
> ---
>   block/io.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Since I'm not seeing other block related patch for 9.0 and
I'm preparing a pull request, I'm queuing this one.

Regards,

Phil.
Kevin Wolf April 2, 2024, 12:38 p.m. UTC | #4
Am 02.04.2024 um 12:53 hat Philippe Mathieu-Daudé geschrieben:
> On 27/3/24 20:27, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Coverity complains that the check introduced in commit 3f934817 suggests
> > that qiov could be NULL and we dereference it before reaching the check.
> > In fact, all of the callers pass a non-NULL pointer, so just remove the
> > misleading check.
> > 
> > Resolves: Coverity CID 1542668
> > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >   block/io.c | 2 +-
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> Since I'm not seeing other block related patch for 9.0 and
> I'm preparing a pull request, I'm queuing this one.

Thanks, Phil. I didn't send a pull request because I didn't have
anything else and silencing a Coverity false positive didn't seem urgent
for 9.0, but it certainly doesn't hurt either.

Kevin
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/block/io.c b/block/io.c
index 395bea3bac..7217cf811b 100644
--- a/block/io.c
+++ b/block/io.c
@@ -1730,7 +1730,7 @@  static int bdrv_pad_request(BlockDriverState *bs,
      * For prefetching in stream_populate(), no qiov is passed along, because
      * only copy-on-read matters.
      */
-    if (qiov && *qiov) {
+    if (*qiov) {
         sliced_iov = qemu_iovec_slice(*qiov, *qiov_offset, *bytes,
                                       &sliced_head, &sliced_tail,
                                       &sliced_niov);