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(-)

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);
-- 
2.44.0

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.

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

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>

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