New python PIDL checks cause 2221 new Coverity warnings
kai at samba.org
Thu Aug 27 08:19:58 UTC 2015
On 2015-08-27 04:44, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>> I see no point in crying over spilled milk. So now that the plan has
>> collided with reality, how do we proceed to make our Coverity useful
> I'm really not sure. This really wasn't the quick-and-dirty solution,
> it was the best we could come up with (I worked with Douglas on it, as
> he had started on some 32 bit patches in this area). I originally
> tried generating different code for different cases, and we ended up
> with a tangled mess of duplicated PIDL generators, and still much the
> same problem due to the 32 bit python integer limit.
I've never claimed it was the quick-and-dirty solution, but right now it
is causing considerable noise in the static code analysis tools,
rendering them pretty useless. I'm not sure this is a price we're just
willing to pay and move on.
> Productive (ie, please look at the generators, this isn't a simple
> area) suggestions, and patches are most welcome, and gladly this area
> is now tested so we have a hope of validating the result.
Realistically, I don't have time to do that, and likely won't have any
time soon. I mainly spoke up because "fix a coverity issue" was a nice
thing I could do when I had a bit of time and felt like hacking on
Samba, and now it looks like I'll have to data mine for a true issue first.
Samba Developer http://samba.team
More information about the samba-technical