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-2BK5tYpPklA...