[xmlsec] Patches for issues found by automated check tools

[Aleksey Sanin]

Hi Simo,

Thanks again for the patches. I've applied most of them (see bellow) or
just fixed problems in other ways. The code is pushed to Gnome git and
I wonder if it would be possible to re-run the tools to make sure no
new issues are found? Thanks in advance!


* 0001-Check-returned-value.patch

Looks good, commited

* 0002-Fix-dead-code.patch

I don't believe the first part of the patch is correct: assert will
fire if condition is "false" which is what the original code does:

xmlSecAssert2("..." == NULL, 1)

Since string != NULL, it will fire (ugly, I know). What it actually
complains about is the return(-1) *after* that - assert always fires
and returns so second return is never reached. So to fix this one, I've
replaced assert with a real error.

The second part - Coverity is correct with the useVisa3DHack flag but
I feel much safer having the dead code that tries to free buffer instead
of not having it.

* 0003-Fix-potential-NULL-pointer-dereference.patch

Looks good, applied with a minor tweak.

* 0004-Fix-printf-format-warnings.patch

I hate printf() integer formats. Applied.

* 0005-Silence-warnings-about-unused-computed-values.patch

Don't think it matters much. Applied.

* 0006-Elimanate-assignments-that-are-never-used.patch

The keysdata.c patch is wrong - this is actually a good catch and ret
should be checked.

The pkikeys.c patch is also wrong - a check is needed.

The nss/x509vfy.c patch is badly wrong - it breaks the parser. I've set
the initial value instead.

The src/openssl/x509vfy.c is partially correct. The flag variable is
important and is actually used (I guess Clang got confused by all the
#if's in this file).

The parser.c patch is wrong too - again good catch and ret should be
checked.

Anyway, the errors were good - I just patched them in different ways.

* 0007-Fix-potential-NULL-dereference.patch

Looks good, applied with a minor tweak.



Aleksey

On 6/3/14, 2:21 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> Hello,
> we've run a bunch of checkers against the latest xmlsec code and I have
> a few patches you may want to consider for inclusion.
> 
> Some are no brainers, others you may like or not.
> I would like to apply them downstream once they are accepted in master,
> let me know what you think.
> 
> Simo.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xmlsec mailing list
> xmlsec at aleksey.com
> http://www.aleksey.com/mailman/listinfo/xmlsec
>