- dev - lists.frrouting.org

Re: Canceled: Northbound discussion
by Santosh P K 19 Feb '20

19 Feb '20

Typo – Cancelling only for this week. From: Santosh P K <sapk(a)vmware.com> Date: Wednesday, 19 February 2020 at 12:06 PM To: FRRouting-Dev <dev(a)lists.frrouting.org> Cc: "sworley(a)cumulusnetworks.com" <sworley(a)cumulusnetworks.com>, "dslice(a)cumulusnetworks.com" <dslice(a)cumulusnetworks.com>, "mjs(a)voltanet.io" <mjs(a)voltanet.io>, "netravnen(a)gmail.com" <netravnen(a)gmail.com>, "chirag(a)cumulusnetworks.com" <chirag(a)cumulusnetworks.com>, "qlyoung(a)cumulusnetworks.com" <qlyoung(a)cumulusnetworks.com>, "jeff(a)apstra.com" <jeff(a)apstra.com> Subject: Canceled: Northbound discussion Cancelling on for this week as discussed in yang channel. Thanks Santosh P K

1 0

Canceled: Northbound discussion
by Santosh P K 19 Feb '20

19 Feb '20

Cancelling on for this week as discussed in yang channel. Thanks Santosh P K

1 0

Nexthop Group Future Enhancements Meeting
by Stephen Worley 18 Feb '20

18 Feb '20

All, I am setting up a meeting to discuss PR https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/pull/5803 and other possible future enhancements to Nexthop Groups (mutability, daemon allocation, etc.) Review the PR and join us if you are interested. The tentative date/time for the meeting is February 24th (Monday) at 3pm Eastern Standard Time (EST). We will use donald's bluejeans link: https://bluejeans.com/9192742159 <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://bluejeans.com/9192742159&sa=D&ust=1582…> If this time/date does not work for you, let me know and we can adjust. Thanks, sworley

1 0

New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for freerangerouting/frr
by scan-admin＠coverity.com 18 Feb '20

18 Feb '20

Hi, Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to freerangerouting/frr found with Coverity Scan. 4 new defect(s) introduced to freerangerouting/frr found with Coverity Scan. 37 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 4 of 4 defect(s) ** CID 1491273: Memory - corruptions (ARRAY_VS_SINGLETON) /lib/command_parse.c: 1470 in cmd_yyparse() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491273: Memory - corruptions (ARRAY_VS_SINGLETON) /lib/command_parse.c: 1470 in cmd_yyparse() 1464 if (yyss1 != yyssa) 1465 YYSTACK_FREE (yyss1); 1466 } 1467 # endif 1468 1469 yyssp = yyss + yysize - 1; >>> CID 1491273: Memory - corruptions (ARRAY_VS_SINGLETON) >>> Using "yyvs" as an array. This might corrupt or misinterpret adjacent memory locations. 1470 yyvsp = yyvs + yysize - 1; 1471 yylsp = yyls + yysize - 1; 1472 1473 YY_IGNORE_USELESS_CAST_BEGIN 1474 YYDPRINTF ((stderr, "Stack size increased to %ld\n", 1475 YY_CAST (long, yystacksize))); ** CID 1491272: Memory - corruptions (ARRAY_VS_SINGLETON) /lib/command_parse.c: 1469 in cmd_yyparse() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491272: Memory - corruptions (ARRAY_VS_SINGLETON) /lib/command_parse.c: 1469 in cmd_yyparse() 1463 # undef YYSTACK_RELOCATE 1464 if (yyss1 != yyssa) 1465 YYSTACK_FREE (yyss1); 1466 } 1467 # endif 1468 >>> CID 1491272: Memory - corruptions (ARRAY_VS_SINGLETON) >>> Using "yyss" as an array. This might corrupt or misinterpret adjacent memory locations. 1469 yyssp = yyss + yysize - 1; 1470 yyvsp = yyvs + yysize - 1; 1471 yylsp = yyls + yysize - 1; 1472 1473 YY_IGNORE_USELESS_CAST_BEGIN 1474 YYDPRINTF ((stderr, "Stack size increased to %ld\n", ** CID 1491271: (CONSTANT_EXPRESSION_RESULT) /lib/command_parse.c: 1187 in yysyntax_error() /lib/command_parse.c: 1216 in yysyntax_error() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491271: (CONSTANT_EXPRESSION_RESULT) /lib/command_parse.c: 1187 in yysyntax_error() 1181 break; 1182 } 1183 yyarg[yycount++] = yytname[yyx]; 1184 { 1185 YYPTRDIFF_T yysize1 1186 = yysize + yytnamerr (YY_NULLPTR, yytname[yyx]); >>> CID 1491271: (CONSTANT_EXPRESSION_RESULT) >>> "yysize1 <= 9223372036854775807L /* (long)((9223372036854775807L < (unsigned long)-1) ? 9223372036854775807L : (unsigned long)-1) */" is always true regardless of the values of its operands. This occurs as the logical second operand of "&&". 1187 if (yysize <= yysize1 && yysize1 <= YYSTACK_ALLOC_MAXIMUM) 1188 yysize = yysize1; 1189 else 1190 return 2; 1191 } 1192 } /lib/command_parse.c: 1216 in yysyntax_error() 1210 } 1211 1212 { 1213 /* Don't count the "%s"s in the final size, but reserve room for 1214 the terminator. */ 1215 YYPTRDIFF_T yysize1 = yysize + (yystrlen (yyformat) - 2 * yycount) + 1; >>> CID 1491271: (CONSTANT_EXPRESSION_RESULT) >>> "yysize1 <= 9223372036854775807L /* (long)((9223372036854775807L < (unsigned long)-1) ? 9223372036854775807L : (unsigned long)-1) */" is always true regardless of the values of its operands. This occurs as the logical second operand of "&&". 1216 if (yysize <= yysize1 && yysize1 <= YYSTACK_ALLOC_MAXIMUM) 1217 yysize = yysize1; 1218 else 1219 return 2; 1220 } 1221 ** CID 1491270: Integer handling issues (CONSTANT_EXPRESSION_RESULT) /lib/command_parse.c: 1226 in yysyntax_error() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491270: Integer handling issues (CONSTANT_EXPRESSION_RESULT) /lib/command_parse.c: 1226 in yysyntax_error() 1220 } 1221 1222 if (*yymsg_alloc < yysize) 1223 { 1224 *yymsg_alloc = 2 * yysize; 1225 if (! (yysize <= *yymsg_alloc >>> CID 1491270: Integer handling issues (CONSTANT_EXPRESSION_RESULT) >>> "*yymsg_alloc <= 9223372036854775807L /* (long)((9223372036854775807L < (unsigned long)-1) ? 9223372036854775807L : (unsigned long)-1) */" is always true regardless of the values of its operands. This occurs as the logical second operand of "&&". 1226 && *yymsg_alloc <= YYSTACK_ALLOC_MAXIMUM)) 1227 *yymsg_alloc = YYSTACK_ALLOC_MAXIMUM; 1228 return 1; 1229 } 1230 1231 /* Avoid sprintf, as that infringes on the user's name space. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 13 Feb '20

13 Feb '20

Hi, Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to freerangerouting/frr found with Coverity Scan. 84 new defect(s) introduced to freerangerouting/frr found with Coverity Scan. 28 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 84 defect(s) ** 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 1491244: Null pointer dereferences (NULL_RETURNS) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491244: Null pointer dereferences (NULL_RETURNS) /bgpd/bgp_nht.c: 903 in bgp_nht_register_enhe_capability_interfaces() 897 if (peer != bnc->nht_info) 898 return; 899 900 for (nhop = bnc->nexthop; nhop; nhop = nhop->next) { 901 ifp = if_lookup_by_index(nhop->ifindex, 902 nhop->vrf_id); >>> CID 1491244: Null pointer dereferences (NULL_RETURNS) >>> Dereferencing a pointer that might be "NULL" "ifp" when calling "zclient_send_interface_radv_req". 903 zclient_send_interface_radv_req(zclient, 904 nhop->vrf_id, 905 ifp, true, 906 BGP_UNNUM_DEFAULT_RA_INTERVAL); 907 } ** 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 1491240: Memory - illegal accesses (USE_AFTER_FREE) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491240: Memory - illegal accesses (USE_AFTER_FREE) /lib/routemap.c: 930 in route_map_index_delete() 924 if (rmap_debug) 925 zlog_debug("Deleting route-map %s sequence %d", 926 index->map->name, index->pref); 927 928 /* Free route map northbound hook contexts. */ 929 while (!TAILQ_EMPTY(&index->rhclist)) >>> CID 1491240: Memory - illegal accesses (USE_AFTER_FREE) >>> Calling "routemap_hook_context_free" dereferences freed pointer "index->rhclist.tqh_first". 930 routemap_hook_context_free(TAILQ_FIRST(&index->rhclist)); 931 932 /* Free route match. */ 933 while ((rule = index->match_list.head) != NULL) 934 route_map_rule_delete(&index->match_list, rule); 935 ** 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 1491233: Control flow issues (DEADCODE) /bgpd/bgp_rpki.c: 1423 in match_rpki() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491233: Control flow issues (DEADCODE) /bgpd/bgp_rpki.c: 1423 in match_rpki() 1417 case RMAP_RULE_MISSING: 1418 vty_out(vty, "%% BGP Can't find rule.\n"); 1419 return CMD_WARNING_CONFIG_FAILED; 1420 case RMAP_COMPILE_ERROR: 1421 vty_out(vty, "%% BGP Argument is malformed.\n"); 1422 return CMD_WARNING_CONFIG_FAILED; >>> CID 1491233: Control flow issues (DEADCODE) >>> Execution cannot reach this statement: "case RMAP_COMPILE_SUCCESS:". 1423 case RMAP_COMPILE_SUCCESS: 1424 /* 1425 * Intentionally doing nothing here 1426 */ 1427 break; 1428 } ** 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 1491230: Control flow issues (DEADCODE) /bgpd/bgp_rpki.c: 1456 in no_match_rpki() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1491230: Control flow issues (DEADCODE) /bgpd/bgp_rpki.c: 1456 in no_match_rpki() 1450 case RMAP_RULE_MISSING: 1451 vty_out(vty, "%% BGP Can't find rule.\n"); 1452 break; 1453 case RMAP_COMPILE_ERROR: 1454 vty_out(vty, "%% BGP Argument is malformed.\n"); 1455 break; >>> CID 1491230: Control flow issues (DEADCODE) >>> Execution cannot reach this statement: "case RMAP_COMPILE_SUCCESS:". 1456 case RMAP_COMPILE_SUCCESS: 1457 /* 1458 * Nothing to do here 1459 */ 1460 break; 1461 } ** 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_)); ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ To view the defects in Coverity Scan visit, https://u2389337.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=nJaKvJSIH-2FPAfmty-2BK5tYpPkl…

1 0

Proposal for new maintainers
by Donald Sharp 13 Feb '20

13 Feb '20

I'd like to propose two new maintainers for FRR: Santosh Pallagatti ( sapk(a)vmware.com ) Stephen Worley (sworley(a)cumulusnetworks.com) thanks! donald

1 0

Re: Northbound discussion
by Santosh P K 13 Feb '20

13 Feb '20

Hello All, Agenda below for tomorrow’s call. 1. Routing yang will be addressing all comments received before meeting tomorrow. * https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/pull/5530 2. PIM and IGMP yang tree agreement. * https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/pull/5534 * https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/pull/5519 3. Zebra operation model. Myself and Chirag discussed about this offline and wanted to nexthop operational model. We will briefly present this in call. We also need to conclude if operational model should be part of the same tree or separate tree. * https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/pull/5533 4. Nexthop group config model and staticd config model review comments addressed. * https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/pull/5460 * https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/pull/5578 Thanks Santosh P K

1 1

FRR Telco meeting
by olivier.dugeon＠orange.com 11 Feb '20

11 Feb '20

When: Occurs on Wednesday every other week from 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM effective 2/19/2020 until 12/31/2020. (UTC+01:00) Amsterdam, Berlin, Bern, Rome, Stockholm, Vienna Where: BlueJean https://bluejeans.com/9192742159 *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Hi all, This is the invite for the regular Telco's meeting. Note that I must shift it by one hour due to overlap with other personal regular meeting Regards Olivier _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.

1 0

Telco meeting
by olivier.dugeon＠orange.com 11 Feb '20

11 Feb '20

When: Occurs on Wednesday every other week from 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM effective 2/19/2020 until 12/31/2020. (UTC+01:00) Amsterdam, Berlin, Bern, Rome, Stockholm, Vienna Where: BlueJean https://bluejeans.com/9192742159 *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Hi all, This is the invite for the regular Telco's meeting. Note that I must shift it by one hour due to overlap with other personal regular meeting Regards Olivier _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.

1 0

FRRouting Interview Request
by Lalaine L. 10 Feb '20

10 Feb '20

Hi there folks at FRRouting! I'm currently reaching out to you today because I'd like to interview you about your experience in the open source software space for our blog. I stumbled onto your site so I thought I'd reach out for an interview :) As far as the interview goes, it would be a text based interview (completed through email) consisting of about ten questions and we would publish it on our blog (see our site in my bio below). We would link back to your site as well. We're just looking to interview a few thought-leaders in the open source software space about their unique perspectives and experiences with regards to building open source projects. We'll promote the interview on Facebook, LinkedIn and other social media platforms as well. Let me know if you're interested and we'll go from there! Best! Lalaine Erxes Website [1] Links: ------ [1] https://erxes.io/

1 0