[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

[libvirt] [PATCH] lxc_controller.c: don't ignore failed "accept"

coverity complained (rightly) about the risk of closing a negative
file descriptor.  However, the real problem was the missing test
for a failed "accept" call.  I'm not 100% sure that a failed
accept call deserves to provoke a "goto cleanup", but doing that
is consistent with what the nearby code does upon epoll_ctl failure.

>From 8bfd81f0a8a9cb3fd9b575e9c2f5ab9969a2910f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jim Meyering <meyering redhat com>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 11:55:19 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] lxc_controller.c: don't ignore failed "accept"

* src/lxc/lxc_controller.c (lxcControllerMain): A failed accept could
lead to passing a negative file descriptor to various other functions,
which would in turn report EBADF, rather that whatever error prompted
the initial failure.
 src/lxc/lxc_controller.c |    5 +++++
 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/lxc/lxc_controller.c b/src/lxc/lxc_controller.c
index 6304815..682f874 100644
--- a/src/lxc/lxc_controller.c
+++ b/src/lxc/lxc_controller.c
@@ -349,6 +349,11 @@ static int lxcControllerMain(int monitor,
         if (numEvents > 0) {
             if (epollEvent.data.fd == monitor) {
                 int fd = accept(monitor, NULL, 0);
+                if (fd < 0) {
+                    virReportSystemError(NULL, errno, "%s",
+                                         _("accept(monitor,...) failed"));
+                    goto cleanup;
+                }
                 if (client != -1) { /* Already connected, so kick new one out */

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]