IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
sysconf() may also return -1 although rather theoretically.
Default to 4K when such case would happen.
Also in function call it just once and keep as static variable.
Analyzer here was rather confused about possiblity of loosing previously
assigned device pointers - fixed by passing zero initialize memory
before first assign.
Ensure only nonNULL 'du' pointer is dereference altough the comment
to the last assign 'du' pointer already suggest 'NULL' case should not happen.
So just being explicit.
mer du
Error path in _lockd_retrive_vg_pv_list() has not zeroed released path
caussing possible double-free later in the code.
Fix it by using one single function freeing lock_pvs structure.
The cmd memory space is allocated by zalloc, and the registration
fails and is not released.
Although this code would be ever triggered just in the case
of some internal (likely compilation) bug.
Signed-off-by: Wu Guanghao <wuguanghao3@huawei.com>
When building lvm2 in Gentoo/ChromeOS with the ASAN memory
sanitizer enabled, man-generator fails with the following
error. Initializing makes the error go away.
* SUMMARY: MemorySanitizer: use-of-uninitialized-value /build/amd64-generic/tmp/portage/sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.187-r3/work/LVM2.2.02.187/tools/man-generator.c:3316:6 in _include_description_file
* Exiting
* ASAN error detected:
* ==2548047==WARNING: MemorySanitizer: use-of-uninitialized-value
* #0 0x558b00ab4730 in _include_description_file /build/amd64-generic/tmp/portage/sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.187-r3/work/LVM2.2.02.187/tools/man-generator.c:3316:6
* #1 0x558b00ab4730 in _print_man /build/amd64-generic/tmp/portage/sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.187-r3/work/LVM2.2.02.187/tools/man-generator.c:3426:21
* #2 0x558b00ab4730 in main /build/amd64-generic/tmp/portage/sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.187-r3/work/LVM2.2.02.187/tools/man-generator.c:3570:7
* #0 0x7fa9b2cbb807 in find_derivation /var/tmp/portage/cross-x86_64-cros-linux-gnu/glibc-2.33-r8/work/glibc-2.33/iconv/gconv_db.c:583:15
* #1 0x558b00a29559 in ?? ??:0
*
* Uninitialized value was created by an allocation of 'statbuf.i.i' in the stack frame of function 'main'
* #0 0x558b00ab1d4d in main /build/amd64-generic/tmp/portage/sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.187-r3/work/LVM2.2.02.187/tools/man-generator.c:3505
It's not a good idea to change passed 'argv[]' and replace it with
pointers to local stack - although in this case we are not using
this argv[] after return from this function.
Mask for strncpy() Coverity report warning would
actually need to copy buffer from 'tmp_name' instead of 'str'.
But replace it directly with single 'strncpy()' again for better readbility,
just mask out the warning reported for this strncpy instance
(so we do not need to put comment fro every call of strcpy_name_len).
Looks like newer version of mkfs.ext4 consumes more 'real' disk space,
when formating virtual volumes - so double the size of thin-pool to
have enough backend chunks for provisioning.
Existing mechanism was not able to trace root volume issue.
Simplify the functionality by using simply using activated flag
and trace the dtree in reverse order.
When cache creation fails on table reload path, implemen more
advanced revert solution, that tries to restore state of LVM
metadata into is look before actual caching started.
Loading invalid MQ/SMQ policy settings table line cause immediate
rejection - to prevent such failure, automatically filter valid
settins before it is being uploaded by lvm2.
For invalid setting issue a warnning informing user how to remove
them.
This solution is used to keep running cached LVs that might had
been created in the past with invalid settings that have been actually
unused due to another code bug.
When generating table line for cache target line,
the estimation of added arguments was incorrectly
calculated as the evaluation order of "?" is
made after "+".
However the result was 'masked' by the
Reported-by: Jian Cai jcai19