[systemd-devel] [PATCH] socket-proxyd: Unchecked return value from library

[Susant Sahani]

On 09/19/2014 02:11 PM, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Alexander E. Patrakov
> <patrakov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 19.09.2014 14:35, Susant Sahani wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/19/2014 02:00 PM, David Herrmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Susant Sahani <susant at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/19/2014 01:35 PM, David Herrmann wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think that's right. Ignoring the return value of that fcntl is
>>>>>> just fine. We read the buffer-size afterwards, so if it failed, we
>>>>>> still continue properly. See fcntl(2) for a bunch of errors that might
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well I think set and get are two operations. for example let's say set
>>>>> failed but get success.
>>>>> setting BUFFER_SIZE failed and in this case buf size is remained as
>>>>> default
>>>>> pipe size.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ..exactly! And the default buffer size is just fine. We'd prefer if we
>>>> could set it to BUFFER_SIZE, but if we're not allowed to do that, we
>>>> still continue running with the already set buffer size.
>>>
>>>
>>> yes but how about giving a log for coverity and we ignore the error ?
>>
>>
>> How would an admin react to that log message? I'm fine with it being at the
>> debug priority, but I am not the person who makes decisions here.
>
> Exactly! There is little point in generating those messages.
>
> Lets fix tools, not work around their bugs. Coverity should understand
> that ignoring ioctl() return codes is sometimes exactly what we want.
> So I'd prefer if we mark it as "false positive".

Well In this exact scenario this makes sense .

Susant