- dev - lists.frrouting.org

New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for freerangerouting/frr
by scan-admin＠coverity.com 17 Mar '20

17 Mar '20

Hi, Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to freerangerouting/frr found with Coverity Scan. 2 new defect(s) introduced to freerangerouting/frr found with Coverity Scan. 35 defect(s), reported by Coverity Scan earlier, were marked fixed in the recent build analyzed by Coverity Scan. New defect(s) Reported-by: Coverity Scan Showing 2 of 2 defect(s) ** CID 1491755: Memory - illegal accesses (USE_AFTER_FREE) /pimd/pim_vxlan.c: 792 in pim_vxlan_sg_del() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491755: Memory - illegal accesses (USE_AFTER_FREE) /pimd/pim_vxlan.c: 792 in pim_vxlan_sg_del() 786 787 vxlan_sg = pim_vxlan_sg_find(pim, sg); 788 if (!vxlan_sg) 789 return; 790 791 pim_vxlan_sg_del_item(vxlan_sg); >>> CID 1491755: Memory - illegal accesses (USE_AFTER_FREE) >>> Passing freed pointer "vxlan_sg" as an argument to "hash_release". 792 hash_release(pim->vxlan.sg_hash, vxlan_sg); 793 } 794 795 /******************************* MLAG handling *******************************/ 796 bool pim_vxlan_do_mlag_reg(void) 797 { ** CID 1491754: Null pointer dereferences (REVERSE_INULL) /lib/mlag.c: 90 in mlag_lib_decode_mlag_hdr() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491754: Null pointer dereferences (REVERSE_INULL) /lib/mlag.c: 90 in mlag_lib_decode_mlag_hdr() 84 int mlag_lib_decode_mlag_hdr(struct stream *s, struct mlag_msg *msg, 85 size_t *length) 86 { 87 #define LIB_MLAG_HDR_LENGTH 8 88 *length = stream_get_endp(s); 89 >>> CID 1491754: Null pointer dereferences (REVERSE_INULL) >>> Null-checking "s" suggests that it may be null, but it has already been dereferenced on all paths leading to the check. 90 if (s == NULL || msg == NULL || *length < LIB_MLAG_HDR_LENGTH) 91 return -1; 92 93 *length -= LIB_MLAG_HDR_LENGTH; 94 95 STREAM_GETL(s, msg->msg_type); ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ To view the defects in Coverity Scan visit, https://u2389337.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=nJaKvJSIH-2FPAfmty-2BK5tYpPkl…

1 0

Canceled: Northbound discussion
by Santosh P K 13 Mar '20

13 Mar '20

Today’s meeting is cancelled as I am not available and could not find anyone to run it. We will meet next Friday for the same. I will update ongoing progress. Thanks Santosh P K

1 0

Northbound discussion
by Santosh P K 12 Mar '20

12 Mar '20

Edited series to accommodate day light savings. Thanks Santosh P K

1 0

Canceled: Northbound discussion
by Santosh P K 12 Mar '20

12 Mar '20

Adjusting day light saving. Thanks Santosh P K

1 0

Northbound discussion
by Santosh P K 11 Mar '20

11 Mar '20

Adjusting day light saving. Thanks Santosh P K

1 0

Northbound discussions - MOM 06/03/2020
by Santosh P K 07 Mar '20

07 Mar '20

We have a northbound project wiki page https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/wiki/Northbound-Project. Please see MOM for today’s discussion at anotepad.com/notes/whf5ap7k<https://anotepad.com/notes/whf5ap7k>. I had choppy internet so missed out few discussion today. @Mark and @sworley@cumulusnetworks.com<mailto:sworley@cumulusnetworks.com> since you both know nexthop group implementation well, would like to know what are the concerns that you have for nexthop in zebra operational model. If you can let me know the concerns I keep that as agenda for next week. Thanks Santosh P K From: Santosh P K <sapk(a)vmware.com> Date: Thursday, 5 March 2020 at 11:06 PM To: FRRouting-Dev <dev(a)lists.frrouting.org> Subject: Northbound discussions Tomorrow’s agenda. 1. Update on the work till now. 2. Zebra operational Yang model changes. 3. Conclude on PIMv4/v6 common parameters discussion. 4. Landing standard Yang directly on FRR. * Olivier brought up requirement of landing Standard Yang on FRR. We need some initial discussion to see if some kind of conversion agent is required for this. 5. Unified Yang server further discussion. Thanks Santosh P K

1 0

Northbound discussions
by Santosh P K 06 Mar '20

06 Mar '20

Hello All, Agenda for tomorrow’s meeting. 1. Unified Yang server 2. PIM Yang comments 3. Zebra operational yang comments 4. OSPF initial Yang tree discussion (if time permits) Thanks Santosh P K

1 1

New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for freerangerouting/frr
by scan-admin＠coverity.com 05 Mar '20

05 Mar '20

Hi, Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to freerangerouting/frr found with Coverity Scan. 1 new defect(s) introduced to freerangerouting/frr found with Coverity Scan. New defect(s) Reported-by: Coverity Scan Showing 1 of 1 defect(s) ** CID 1491588: Null pointer dereferences (REVERSE_INULL) /zebra/zebra_vty.c: 937 in do_show_ip_route_all() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491588: Null pointer dereferences (REVERSE_INULL) /zebra/zebra_vty.c: 937 in do_show_ip_route_all() 931 932 if (zvrf != info->zvrf) 933 continue; 934 if (zrt->afi != afi || 935 zrt->safi != SAFI_UNICAST) 936 continue; >>> CID 1491588: Null pointer dereferences (REVERSE_INULL) >>> Null-checking "zrt->table" suggests that it may be null, but it has already been dereferenced on all paths leading to the check. 937 if (zrt->table) 938 do_show_ip_route(vty, zvrf_name(zvrf), afi, 939 SAFI_UNICAST, use_fib, use_json, 940 tag, longer_prefix_p, 941 supernets_only, type, 942 ospf_instance_id, zrt->tableid); ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ To view the defects in Coverity Scan visit, https://u2389337.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=nJaKvJSIH-2FPAfmty-2BK5tYpPkl…

1 0

New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for freerangerouting/frr
by scan-admin＠coverity.com 28 Feb '20

28 Feb '20

Hi, Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to freerangerouting/frr found with Coverity Scan. 36 new defect(s) introduced to freerangerouting/frr found with Coverity Scan. 15 defect(s), reported by Coverity Scan earlier, were marked fixed in the recent build analyzed by Coverity Scan. New defect(s) Reported-by: Coverity Scan Showing 20 of 36 defect(s) ** CID 1491426: Memory - illegal accesses (USE_AFTER_FREE) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491426: Memory - illegal accesses (USE_AFTER_FREE) /pimd/pim_mlag.c: 309 in pim_mlag_up_peer_del_all() 303 304 pim_mlag_up_peer_deref(pim, up); 305 /* 306 * This is the deletion of the reference added 307 * above 308 */ >>> CID 1491426: Memory - illegal accesses (USE_AFTER_FREE) >>> Calling "pim_upstream_del" dereferences freed pointer "up". 309 pim_upstream_del(pim, up, __PRETTY_FUNCTION__); 310 } 311 } 312 313 list_delete(&temp); 314 } ** CID 1491425: Null pointer dereferences (REVERSE_INULL) /zebra/zebra_nhg.c: 1196 in zebra_nhg_rib_find() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491425: Null pointer dereferences (REVERSE_INULL) /zebra/zebra_nhg.c: 1196 in zebra_nhg_rib_find() 1190 * CLANG SA is complaining that nexthop may be NULL 1191 * Make it happy but this is ridonc 1192 */ 1193 assert(nhg->nexthop); 1194 vrf_id = !vrf_is_backend_netns() ? VRF_DEFAULT : nhg->nexthop->vrf_id; 1195 >>> CID 1491425: Null pointer dereferences (REVERSE_INULL) >>> Null-checking "nhg" suggests that it may be null, but it has already been dereferenced on all paths leading to the check. 1196 if (!(nhg && nhg->nexthop)) { 1197 flog_err(EC_ZEBRA_TABLE_LOOKUP_FAILED, 1198 "No nexthop passed to %s", __func__); 1199 return NULL; 1200 } 1201 ** CID 1491246: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 1672 in frr::GetRequest::GetRequest()() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491246: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 1672 in frr::GetRequest::GetRequest()() 1666 GetRequest::GetRequest() 1667 : ::google::protobuf::Message(), _internal_metadata_(NULL) { 1668 ::google::protobuf::internal::InitSCC( 1669 &protobuf_grpc_2ffrr_2dnorthbound_2eproto::scc_info_GetRequest.base); 1670 SharedCtor(); 1671 // @@protoc_insertion_point(constructor:frr.GetRequest) >>> CID 1491246: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) >>> Non-static class member "encoding_" is not initialized in this constructor nor in any functions that it calls. 1672 } 1673 GetRequest::GetRequest(const GetRequest& from) 1674 : ::google::protobuf::Message(), 1675 _internal_metadata_(NULL), 1676 path_(from.path_) { 1677 _internal_metadata_.MergeFrom(from._internal_metadata_); ** CID 1491245: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 5086 in frr::ListTransactionsRequest::MergePartialFromCodedStream(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream *)() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491245: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 5086 in frr::ListTransactionsRequest::MergePartialFromCodedStream(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream *)() 5080 #define DO_(EXPRESSION) if (!GOOGLE_PREDICT_TRUE(EXPRESSION)) goto failure 5081 ::google::protobuf::uint32 tag; 5082 // @@protoc_insertion_point(parse_start:frr.ListTransactionsRequest) 5083 for (;;) { 5084 ::std::pair<::google::protobuf::uint32, bool> p = input->ReadTagWithCutoffNoLastTag(127u); 5085 tag = p.first; >>> CID 1491245: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) >>> The same code is executed when the condition "!p.second" is true or false, because the code in the if-then branch and after the if statement is identical. Should the if statement be removed? 5086 if (!p.second) goto handle_unusual; 5087 handle_unusual: 5088 if (tag == 0) { 5089 goto success; 5090 } 5091 DO_(::google::protobuf::internal::WireFormat::SkipField( ** CID 1491243: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 1136 in frr::GetCapabilitiesRequest::MergePartialFromCodedStream(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream *)() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491243: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 1136 in frr::GetCapabilitiesRequest::MergePartialFromCodedStream(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream *)() 1130 #define DO_(EXPRESSION) if (!GOOGLE_PREDICT_TRUE(EXPRESSION)) goto failure 1131 ::google::protobuf::uint32 tag; 1132 // @@protoc_insertion_point(parse_start:frr.GetCapabilitiesRequest) 1133 for (;;) { 1134 ::std::pair<::google::protobuf::uint32, bool> p = input->ReadTagWithCutoffNoLastTag(127u); 1135 tag = p.first; >>> CID 1491243: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) >>> The same code is executed when the condition "!p.second" is true or false, because the code in the if-then branch and after the if statement is identical. Should the if statement be removed? 1136 if (!p.second) goto handle_unusual; 1137 handle_unusual: 1138 if (tag == 0) { 1139 goto success; 1140 } 1141 DO_(::google::protobuf::internal::WireFormat::SkipField( ** CID 1491242: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 1282 in frr::GetCapabilitiesResponse::GetCapabilitiesResponse(const frr::GetCapabilitiesResponse&)() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491242: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 1282 in frr::GetCapabilitiesResponse::GetCapabilitiesResponse(const frr::GetCapabilitiesResponse&)() 1276 frr_version_.UnsafeSetDefault(&::google::protobuf::internal::GetEmptyStringAlreadyInited()); 1277 if (from.frr_version().size() > 0) { 1278 frr_version_.AssignWithDefault(&::google::protobuf::internal::GetEmptyStringAlreadyInited(), from.frr_version_); 1279 } 1280 rollback_support_ = from.rollback_support_; 1281 // @@protoc_insertion_point(copy_constructor:frr.GetCapabilitiesResponse) >>> CID 1491242: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) >>> Non-static class member "_supported_encodings_cached_byte_size_" is not initialized in this constructor nor in any functions that it calls. 1282 } 1283 1284 void GetCapabilitiesResponse::SharedCtor() { 1285 frr_version_.UnsafeSetDefault(&::google::protobuf::internal::GetEmptyStringAlreadyInited()); 1286 rollback_support_ = false; 1287 } ** CID 1491241: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 6376 in frr::LockConfigResponse::MergePartialFromCodedStream(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream *)() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491241: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 6376 in frr::LockConfigResponse::MergePartialFromCodedStream(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream *)() 6370 #define DO_(EXPRESSION) if (!GOOGLE_PREDICT_TRUE(EXPRESSION)) goto failure 6371 ::google::protobuf::uint32 tag; 6372 // @@protoc_insertion_point(parse_start:frr.LockConfigResponse) 6373 for (;;) { 6374 ::std::pair<::google::protobuf::uint32, bool> p = input->ReadTagWithCutoffNoLastTag(127u); 6375 tag = p.first; >>> CID 1491241: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) >>> The same code is executed when the condition "!p.second" is true or false, because the code in the if-then branch and after the if statement is identical. Should the if statement be removed? 6376 if (!p.second) goto handle_unusual; 6377 handle_unusual: 6378 if (tag == 0) { 6379 goto success; 6380 } 6381 DO_(::google::protobuf::internal::WireFormat::SkipField( ** CID 1491239: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 3864 in frr::EditCandidateResponse::MergePartialFromCodedStream(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream *)() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491239: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 3864 in frr::EditCandidateResponse::MergePartialFromCodedStream(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream *)() 3858 #define DO_(EXPRESSION) if (!GOOGLE_PREDICT_TRUE(EXPRESSION)) goto failure 3859 ::google::protobuf::uint32 tag; 3860 // @@protoc_insertion_point(parse_start:frr.EditCandidateResponse) 3861 for (;;) { 3862 ::std::pair<::google::protobuf::uint32, bool> p = input->ReadTagWithCutoffNoLastTag(127u); 3863 tag = p.first; >>> CID 1491239: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) >>> The same code is executed when the condition "!p.second" is true or false, because the code in the if-then branch and after the if statement is identical. Should the if statement be removed? 3864 if (!p.second) goto handle_unusual; 3865 handle_unusual: 3866 if (tag == 0) { 3867 goto success; 3868 } 3869 DO_(::google::protobuf::internal::WireFormat::SkipField( ** CID 1491238: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 6734 in frr::UnlockConfigResponse::MergePartialFromCodedStream(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream *)() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491238: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 6734 in frr::UnlockConfigResponse::MergePartialFromCodedStream(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream *)() 6728 #define DO_(EXPRESSION) if (!GOOGLE_PREDICT_TRUE(EXPRESSION)) goto failure 6729 ::google::protobuf::uint32 tag; 6730 // @@protoc_insertion_point(parse_start:frr.UnlockConfigResponse) 6731 for (;;) { 6732 ::std::pair<::google::protobuf::uint32, bool> p = input->ReadTagWithCutoffNoLastTag(127u); 6733 tag = p.first; >>> CID 1491238: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) >>> The same code is executed when the condition "!p.second" is true or false, because the code in the if-then branch and after the if statement is identical. Should the if statement be removed? 6734 if (!p.second) goto handle_unusual; 6735 handle_unusual: 6736 if (tag == 0) { 6737 goto success; 6738 } 6739 DO_(::google::protobuf::internal::WireFormat::SkipField( ** CID 1491237: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 3372 in frr::UpdateCandidateResponse::MergePartialFromCodedStream(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream *)() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491237: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 3372 in frr::UpdateCandidateResponse::MergePartialFromCodedStream(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream *)() 3366 #define DO_(EXPRESSION) if (!GOOGLE_PREDICT_TRUE(EXPRESSION)) goto failure 3367 ::google::protobuf::uint32 tag; 3368 // @@protoc_insertion_point(parse_start:frr.UpdateCandidateResponse) 3369 for (;;) { 3370 ::std::pair<::google::protobuf::uint32, bool> p = input->ReadTagWithCutoffNoLastTag(127u); 3371 tag = p.first; >>> CID 1491237: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) >>> The same code is executed when the condition "!p.second" is true or false, because the code in the if-then branch and after the if statement is identical. Should the if statement be removed? 3372 if (!p.second) goto handle_unusual; 3373 handle_unusual: 3374 if (tag == 0) { 3375 goto success; 3376 } 3377 DO_(::google::protobuf::internal::WireFormat::SkipField( ** CID 1491236: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 6555 in frr::UnlockConfigRequest::MergePartialFromCodedStream(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream *)() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491236: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 6555 in frr::UnlockConfigRequest::MergePartialFromCodedStream(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream *)() 6549 #define DO_(EXPRESSION) if (!GOOGLE_PREDICT_TRUE(EXPRESSION)) goto failure 6550 ::google::protobuf::uint32 tag; 6551 // @@protoc_insertion_point(parse_start:frr.UnlockConfigRequest) 6552 for (;;) { 6553 ::std::pair<::google::protobuf::uint32, bool> p = input->ReadTagWithCutoffNoLastTag(127u); 6554 tag = p.first; >>> CID 1491236: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) >>> The same code is executed when the condition "!p.second" is true or false, because the code in the if-then branch and after the if statement is identical. Should the if statement be removed? 6555 if (!p.second) goto handle_unusual; 6556 handle_unusual: 6557 if (tag == 0) { 6558 goto success; 6559 } 6560 DO_(::google::protobuf::internal::WireFormat::SkipField( ** CID 1491235: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 2345 in frr::CreateCandidateRequest::MergePartialFromCodedStream(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream *)() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491235: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 2345 in frr::CreateCandidateRequest::MergePartialFromCodedStream(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream *)() 2339 #define DO_(EXPRESSION) if (!GOOGLE_PREDICT_TRUE(EXPRESSION)) goto failure 2340 ::google::protobuf::uint32 tag; 2341 // @@protoc_insertion_point(parse_start:frr.CreateCandidateRequest) 2342 for (;;) { 2343 ::std::pair<::google::protobuf::uint32, bool> p = input->ReadTagWithCutoffNoLastTag(127u); 2344 tag = p.first; >>> CID 1491235: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) >>> The same code is executed when the condition "!p.second" is true or false, because the code in the if-then branch and after the if statement is identical. Should the if statement be removed? 2345 if (!p.second) goto handle_unusual; 2346 handle_unusual: 2347 if (tag == 0) { 2348 goto success; 2349 } 2350 DO_(::google::protobuf::internal::WireFormat::SkipField( ** CID 1491234: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 6197 in frr::LockConfigRequest::MergePartialFromCodedStream(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream *)() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491234: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 6197 in frr::LockConfigRequest::MergePartialFromCodedStream(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream *)() 6191 #define DO_(EXPRESSION) if (!GOOGLE_PREDICT_TRUE(EXPRESSION)) goto failure 6192 ::google::protobuf::uint32 tag; 6193 // @@protoc_insertion_point(parse_start:frr.LockConfigRequest) 6194 for (;;) { 6195 ::std::pair<::google::protobuf::uint32, bool> p = input->ReadTagWithCutoffNoLastTag(127u); 6196 tag = p.first; >>> CID 1491234: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) >>> The same code is executed when the condition "!p.second" is true or false, because the code in the if-then branch and after the if statement is identical. Should the if statement be removed? 6197 if (!p.second) goto handle_unusual; 6198 handle_unusual: 6199 if (tag == 0) { 6200 goto success; 6201 } 6202 DO_(::google::protobuf::internal::WireFormat::SkipField( ** CID 1491232: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 2970 in frr::DeleteCandidateResponse::MergePartialFromCodedStream(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream *)() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491232: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 2970 in frr::DeleteCandidateResponse::MergePartialFromCodedStream(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream *)() 2964 #define DO_(EXPRESSION) if (!GOOGLE_PREDICT_TRUE(EXPRESSION)) goto failure 2965 ::google::protobuf::uint32 tag; 2966 // @@protoc_insertion_point(parse_start:frr.DeleteCandidateResponse) 2967 for (;;) { 2968 ::std::pair<::google::protobuf::uint32, bool> p = input->ReadTagWithCutoffNoLastTag(127u); 2969 tag = p.first; >>> CID 1491232: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) >>> The same code is executed when the condition "!p.second" is true or false, because the code in the if-then branch and after the if statement is identical. Should the if statement be removed? 2970 if (!p.second) goto handle_unusual; 2971 handle_unusual: 2972 if (tag == 0) { 2973 goto success; 2974 } 2975 DO_(::google::protobuf::internal::WireFormat::SkipField( ** CID 1491231: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 1269 in frr::GetCapabilitiesResponse::GetCapabilitiesResponse()() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491231: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 1269 in frr::GetCapabilitiesResponse::GetCapabilitiesResponse()() 1263 GetCapabilitiesResponse::GetCapabilitiesResponse() 1264 : ::google::protobuf::Message(), _internal_metadata_(NULL) { 1265 ::google::protobuf::internal::InitSCC( 1266 &protobuf_grpc_2ffrr_2dnorthbound_2eproto::scc_info_GetCapabilitiesResponse.base); 1267 SharedCtor(); 1268 // @@protoc_insertion_point(constructor:frr.GetCapabilitiesResponse) >>> CID 1491231: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) >>> Non-static class member "_supported_encodings_cached_byte_size_" is not initialized in this constructor nor in any functions that it calls. 1269 } 1270 GetCapabilitiesResponse::GetCapabilitiesResponse(const GetCapabilitiesResponse& from) 1271 : ::google::protobuf::Message(), 1272 _internal_metadata_(NULL), 1273 supported_modules_(from.supported_modules_), 1274 supported_encodings_(from.supported_encodings_) { ** CID 1491229: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 5624 in frr::GetTransactionRequest::GetTransactionRequest(const frr::GetTransactionRequest&)() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491229: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 5624 in frr::GetTransactionRequest::GetTransactionRequest(const frr::GetTransactionRequest&)() 5618 _internal_metadata_(NULL) { 5619 _internal_metadata_.MergeFrom(from._internal_metadata_); 5620 ::memcpy(&transaction_id_, &from.transaction_id_, 5621 static_cast<size_t>(reinterpret_cast<char*>(&with_defaults_) - 5622 reinterpret_cast<char*>(&transaction_id_)) + sizeof(with_defaults_)); 5623 // @@protoc_insertion_point(copy_constructor:frr.GetTransactionRequest) >>> CID 1491229: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) >>> Non-static class member "with_defaults_" is not initialized in this constructor nor in any functions that it calls. 5624 } 5625 5626 void GetTransactionRequest::SharedCtor() { 5627 ::memset(&transaction_id_, 0, static_cast<size_t>( 5628 reinterpret_cast<char*>(&with_defaults_) - 5629 reinterpret_cast<char*>(&transaction_id_)) + sizeof(with_defaults_)); ** CID 1491228: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 4359 in frr::LoadToCandidateResponse::MergePartialFromCodedStream(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream *)() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491228: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 4359 in frr::LoadToCandidateResponse::MergePartialFromCodedStream(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream *)() 4353 #define DO_(EXPRESSION) if (!GOOGLE_PREDICT_TRUE(EXPRESSION)) goto failure 4354 ::google::protobuf::uint32 tag; 4355 // @@protoc_insertion_point(parse_start:frr.LoadToCandidateResponse) 4356 for (;;) { 4357 ::std::pair<::google::protobuf::uint32, bool> p = input->ReadTagWithCutoffNoLastTag(127u); 4358 tag = p.first; >>> CID 1491228: Incorrect expression (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES) >>> The same code is executed when the condition "!p.second" is true or false, because the code in the if-then branch and after the if statement is identical. Should the if statement be removed? 4359 if (!p.second) goto handle_unusual; 4360 handle_unusual: 4361 if (tag == 0) { 4362 goto success; 4363 } 4364 DO_(::google::protobuf::internal::WireFormat::SkipField( ** CID 1491227: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 1682 in frr::GetRequest::GetRequest(const frr::GetRequest&)() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491227: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 1682 in frr::GetRequest::GetRequest(const frr::GetRequest&)() 1676 path_(from.path_) { 1677 _internal_metadata_.MergeFrom(from._internal_metadata_); 1678 ::memcpy(&type_, &from.type_, 1679 static_cast<size_t>(reinterpret_cast<char*>(&with_defaults_) - 1680 reinterpret_cast<char*>(&type_)) + sizeof(with_defaults_)); 1681 // @@protoc_insertion_point(copy_constructor:frr.GetRequest) >>> CID 1491227: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) >>> Non-static class member "with_defaults_" is not initialized in this constructor nor in any functions that it calls. 1682 } 1683 1684 void GetRequest::SharedCtor() { 1685 ::memset(&type_, 0, static_cast<size_t>( 1686 reinterpret_cast<char*>(&with_defaults_) - 1687 reinterpret_cast<char*>(&type_)) + sizeof(with_defaults_)); ** CID 1491226: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 4504 in frr::CommitRequest::CommitRequest(const frr::CommitRequest&)() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491226: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 4504 in frr::CommitRequest::CommitRequest(const frr::CommitRequest&)() 4498 comment_.AssignWithDefault(&::google::protobuf::internal::GetEmptyStringAlreadyInited(), from.comment_); 4499 } 4500 ::memcpy(&candidate_id_, &from.candidate_id_, 4501 static_cast<size_t>(reinterpret_cast<char*>(&phase_) - 4502 reinterpret_cast<char*>(&candidate_id_)) + sizeof(phase_)); 4503 // @@protoc_insertion_point(copy_constructor:frr.CommitRequest) >>> CID 1491226: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) >>> Non-static class member "phase_" is not initialized in this constructor nor in any functions that it calls. 4504 } 4505 4506 void CommitRequest::SharedCtor() { 4507 comment_.UnsafeSetDefault(&::google::protobuf::internal::GetEmptyStringAlreadyInited()); 4508 ::memset(&candidate_id_, 0, static_cast<size_t>( 4509 reinterpret_cast<char*>(&phase_) - ** CID 1491225: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 3998 in frr::LoadToCandidateRequest::LoadToCandidateRequest()() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491225: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) /grpc/frr-northbound.pb.cc: 3998 in frr::LoadToCandidateRequest::LoadToCandidateRequest()() 3992 LoadToCandidateRequest::LoadToCandidateRequest() 3993 : ::google::protobuf::Message(), _internal_metadata_(NULL) { 3994 ::google::protobuf::internal::InitSCC( 3995 &protobuf_grpc_2ffrr_2dnorthbound_2eproto::scc_info_LoadToCandidateRequest.base); 3996 SharedCtor(); 3997 // @@protoc_insertion_point(constructor:frr.LoadToCandidateRequest) >>> CID 1491225: Uninitialized members (UNINIT_CTOR) >>> Non-static class member "candidate_id_" is not initialized in this constructor nor in any functions that it calls. 3998 } 3999 LoadToCandidateRequest::LoadToCandidateRequest(const LoadToCandidateRequest& from) 4000 : ::google::protobuf::Message(), 4001 _internal_metadata_(NULL) { 4002 _internal_metadata_.MergeFrom(from._internal_metadata_); 4003 if (from.has_config()) { ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ To view the defects in Coverity Scan visit, https://u2389337.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=nJaKvJSIH-2FPAfmty-2BK5tYpPkl…

1 0

Northbound progress
by Santosh P K 21 Feb '20

21 Feb '20

Status on northbound work till now. 1. Nb_conversions branch is up to date with master. 2. Below are the Yang PRs that got merged over last week. * Nexthop yang ( https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/pull/5578) * Staticd yang (https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/pull/5460) * Basic routing yang (https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/pull/5530) * VRF model yang (https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/pull/5501) 3. Staticd code progress * Backend code for staticd is progress, would be raising the PR on or before same by 28th of Feb. 4. PIM yang and code progress * Did some digging around keeping the common configuration out of address-family. We will need to discuss this in upcoming meeting or over slack to conclude on the same for Yang rework. * Backend code is ready with old yang. Once Yang is merged backend code PR will be raised. 5. BGP yang status. * All comments are addressed and waiting for any other review comments. 6. Route-map and filters for protocols. * We will rework on route-map filters that is already merged to master with identifyref and raise the PR for protocols. Thanks Santosh P K

1 1