qemu-io-cmds: assert that we don't have .perm requested in no-blk case
Coverity thinks blk may be NULL. It's a false-positive, as described in
a new comment.
Fixes: Coverity CID 1453194
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Message-Id: <20210519090532.3753-1-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
diff --git a/qemu-io-cmds.c b/qemu-io-cmds.c
index 998b671..e8d862a 100644
--- a/qemu-io-cmds.c
+++ b/qemu-io-cmds.c
@@ -92,9 +92,19 @@
return -EINVAL;
}
- /* Request additional permissions if necessary for this command. The caller
+ /*
+ * Request additional permissions if necessary for this command. The caller
* is responsible for restoring the original permissions afterwards if this
- * is what it wants. */
+ * is what it wants.
+ *
+ * Coverity thinks that blk may be NULL in the following if condition. It's
+ * not so: in init_check_command() we fail if blk is NULL for command with
+ * both CMD_FLAG_GLOBAL and CMD_NOFILE_OK flags unset. And in
+ * qemuio_add_command() we assert that command with non-zero .perm field
+ * doesn't set this flags. So, the following assertion is to silence
+ * Coverity:
+ */
+ assert(blk || !ct->perm);
if (ct->perm && blk_is_available(blk)) {
uint64_t orig_perm, orig_shared_perm;
blk_get_perm(blk, &orig_perm, &orig_shared_perm);
