Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Coverity warning in tshark.c
From: Jakub Zawadzki <darkjames-ws () darkjames pl>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 18:59:16 +0200
Hi Joerg, On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:58:17PM +0200, Joerg Mayer wrote:
Looks like coverity has a valid complaint: CID 1109702: Dereference after null check (FORWARD_NULL) /tshark.c: 2859 ( var_compare_op) 2856 /* If we're going to print packet information, or we're going to 2857 run a read filter, or we're going to process taps, set up to 2858 do a dissection and do so. */Comparing "edt" to null implies that "edt" might be null.2859 if (edt) { 2860 if (gbl_resolv_flags.mac_name || gbl_resolv_flags.network_name || 2861 gbl_resolv_flags.transport_name || gbl_resolv_flags.concurrent_dns) 2862 /* Grab any resolved addresses */ 2863 host_name_lookup_process(); /tshark.c: 2903 ( var_deref_model) 2900 if (print_packet_info) { 2901 /* We're printing packet information; print the information for 2902 this packet. */Passing null variable "edt" to function "print_packet", which dereferences it.2903 print_packet(cf, edt); 2904 2905 /* The ANSI C standard does not appear to *require* that a line-buffered 2906 stream be flushed to the host environment whenever a newline is 2907 written, it just says that, on such a stream, characters "are
I don't see a problem. Previously print_packet() was also passing edt as NULL - if (do_dissection) - print_packet(cf, &edt); - else - print_packet(cf, NULL); I simplified it, just to: + print_packet(cf, edt); No idea how to fix it, sorry. Most likely it's false positive. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- Coverity warning in tshark.c Joerg Mayer (Oct 21)
- Re: Coverity warning in tshark.c Jakub Zawadzki (Oct 22)