Re: [sysvinit-devel] [PATCH 2/5] init.c: add return tests for dup() in spawn()

[Michał Kulling]

There is no risk to resource leak i think, becase:

1. dup() in first statement (TTY controlling) duplicate console fd, so
marked as a resource leak a console fd is a false positive - primo:
it's console handler, secundo: dup() is using for child/fork
processes.

2. dup() in second statement for /dev/null clone for the same reason as above.

Here we can't close file descriptors created by dup() - *I think*. So
we can ignore that and mark as Intentional solution.

Please verify my opinion.

----
Michał Kulling


2014-02-11 22:30 GMT+01:00 Petter Reinholdtsen <address@hidden>:
> [Michał Kulling]
>> Coverity mark my changes as resource leak because I'm not assign
>> descriptor returned from dup().
>
> No, it mark them as resource leaks because the resources leak.  The
> opened file descriptor isn't closed.  I suspect things will fail it it
> is closed, so I have not tried to close it.  But I have not
> investigated either.
>
> The previous patch made it easier to see in Coverity exactly where
> things go wrong, which is why I applied them.  Did you expect them to
> get rid of the leak?
>
> --
> Happy hacking
> Petter Reinholdtsen
>