slirp: Don't pass possibly -1 fd to send()
Coverity complains (CID 1005726) that we might pass -1 as the fd argument to send() in slirp_send(), because we previously checked for "so->s == -1 && so->extra". The case of "so->s == -1 but so->extra NULL" should not in theory happen, but it is hard to guarantee because various places in the code do so->s = qemu_socket(...) and so will end up with so->s == -1 on failure, and not all the paths which call that always throw away the socket in that case (eg tcp_fconnect()). So just check specifically for the condition and fail slirp_send(). Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
160e5c22e5
commit
c41868152a
|
@ -1091,6 +1091,17 @@ ssize_t slirp_send(struct socket *so, const void *buf, size_t len, int flags)
|
|||
return len;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if (so->s == -1) {
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* This should in theory not happen but it is hard to be
|
||||
* sure because some code paths will end up with so->s == -1
|
||||
* on a failure but don't dispose of the struct socket.
|
||||
* Check specifically, so we don't pass -1 to send().
|
||||
*/
|
||||
errno = EBADF;
|
||||
return -1;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return send(so->s, buf, len, flags);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue