New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for freerangerouting/frr
scan-admin at coverity.com
scan-admin at coverity.com
Thu Feb 27 16:34:13 EST 2020
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-2BK5tYpPklAc1eEA-2F1zfUjH6teEwtXAn74UdOrNjckt5W0LJ0CDxXoQFnSJSV51LhpQIExOPuUyDQ-2BIaYqt88E1d5-2F-2Fc-3De90o_O0IDF7c8sUs2B6kWTeWwAJZqriD5fgsfL8PAN30oQTwSot-2BDpk1y0v08pIZqdMokWpMMKkJw5qIA6YSa-2BLhqbc8h1g7-2BVXjmPIa5oY3Iz5D-2FHOcsaeLI9Go25JgpkrcV63m5-2FLk33-2F3A4TE-2By6ikybaTHdDw5avYF6KJ6-2BOCb4eJ138aNiFlZsbFl5oVlSc2Sbnmt5YxQvh-2B45yQ70iHYBuGKggtB1MofV32ZK7WRlM-3D
More information about the dev
mailing list