[LU-3023] Fix fuzzy logic in get_root_path() Created: 25/Mar/13 Updated: 26/Mar/14 Resolved: 03/May/13 |
|
| Status: | Resolved |
| Project: | Lustre |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | Lustre 2.4.0 |
| Fix Version/s: | Lustre 2.4.0 |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Minor |
| Reporter: | Sebastien Buisson (Inactive) | Assignee: | James Nunez (Inactive) |
| Resolution: | Fixed | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | coverity, patch | ||
| Rank (Obsolete): | 7360 |
| Description |
|
While analyzing the Lustre code with Coverity, we found an incorrect logic in the get_root_path() function. Here is Andreas' comment from http://review.whamcloud.com/#patch,sidebyside,5271,5,lustre/utils/liblustreapi.c: I suspect the reader and coverity would be happier if there was "LASSERT(ptr != NULL)" after strrchr(), though definitely your comment clearly explains why this LASSERT() would be true, and it should be kept. Code style says this should have been "if (ptr == NULL && len == 0)". This makes me wonder about the above check as well. Why should the scanning be aborted if (len == 0) (i.e. no other mountpoint is found)? Since IMHO it should just continue on, and ptr is never NULL, I think the above check and -EINVAL could just be removed, perhaps in a separate patch." I will propose a patch to address remark from Andreas. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Sebastien Buisson (Inactive) [ 25/Mar/13 ] |
|
The patch is at: Thanks, |
| Comment by Peter Jones [ 25/Mar/13 ] |
|
James Could you please take care of this one? Thanks Peter |
| Comment by James Nunez (Inactive) [ 03/May/13 ] |
|
Landed for 2.4 |