Conversation
…into topic/fed
Coverity Issue - Uninitialized scalar variableUsing uninitialized value "*strLifetime" when calling "strcmp". High Impact, CWE-457 Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Out-of-bounds accessOverrunning array "validLifetime" of 32 bytes by passing it to a function which accesses it at byte offset 127. High Impact, CWE-119 Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Copy into fixed size bufferYou might overrun the 512-character fixed-size string "currentParam" by copying the return value of "Value" without checking the length. Low Impact, CWE-120 Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Buffer not null terminatedCalling "strncpy" with a maximum size argument of 4096 bytes on destination array "param->paramName" of size 4096 bytes might leave the destination string unterminated. High Impact, CWE-170 Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Array compared against 0Comparing an array to null is not useful: ""Enabled" != NULL", since the test will always evaluate as true. Medium Impact, CWE-398 How to fixWas ""Enabled"" formerly declared as a pointer? Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Resource leakVariable "dmParam" going out of scope leaks the storage "dmParam.access" points to. High Impact, CWE-404 Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Array compared against 0Comparing an array to null is not useful: ""Disabled" != NULL", since the test will always evaluate as true. Medium Impact, CWE-398 How to fixWas ""Disabled"" formerly declared as a pointer? Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Resource leakVariable "dmParam" going out of scope leaks the storage "dmParam.bsUpdate" points to. High Impact, CWE-404 Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Parse recovery warninga value of type "int (*)(void *, const unsigned char , size_t)" cannot be used to initialize an entity of type "int ()(void *, const unsigned char *, unsigned int)" Low Impact, CWE-none Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Parse recovery warninga value of type "int (*)(void *, const unsigned char , size_t)" cannot be used to initialize an entity of type "int ()(void *, const unsigned char *, unsigned int)" Low Impact, CWE-none Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Uninitialized scalar variableUsing uninitialized element of array "prefixStatus" when calling "strncpy". High Impact, CWE-457 Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Parse recovery warningvariable "callbacks" not emitted, consider modeling it or review parse diagnostics to improve fidelity Low Impact, CWE-none Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Array compared against 0Comparing an array to null is not useful: ""NumberOfEntries" != NULL", since the test will always evaluate as true. Medium Impact, CWE-398 How to fixWas ""NumberOfEntries"" formerly declared as a pointer? Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Uninitialized scalar variableUsing uninitialized element of array "ipaddressStatus" when calling "strncpy". High Impact, CWE-457 Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Array compared against 0Comparing an array to null is not useful: "staticType != NULL", since the test will always evaluate as true. Medium Impact, CWE-398 How to fixWas "staticType" formerly declared as a pointer? Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Array compared against 0Comparing an array to null is not useful: "childPrefixBits != NULL", since the test will always evaluate as true. Medium Impact, CWE-398 How to fixWas "childPrefixBits" formerly declared as a pointer? Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Check of thread-shared field evades lock acquisitionThread1 sets "g_dbhandle" to a new value. Now the two threads have an inconsistent view of "g_dbhandle" and updates to fields correlated with "g_dbhandle" may be lost. High Impact, CWE-543 How to fixGuard the modification of "g_dbhandle" and the read used to decide whether to modify "g_dbhandle" with the same set of locks. Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Resource leakVariable "dmParam" going out of scope leaks the storage "dmParam.paramName" points to. High Impact, CWE-404 Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Resource leakFreeing pointer-to-pointer "pParam_name_list" without freeing the pointer it points to leaks the storage that inner pointer points to. High Impact, CWE-404 Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Array compared against 0Comparing an array to null is not useful: ""Disabled" != NULL", since the test will always evaluate as true. Medium Impact, CWE-398 How to fixWas ""Disabled"" formerly declared as a pointer? Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Array compared against 0Comparing an array to null is not useful: ""Disabled" != NULL", since the test will always evaluate as true. Medium Impact, CWE-398 How to fixWas ""Disabled"" formerly declared as a pointer? Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Array compared against 0Comparing an array to null is not useful: "stMsgData->paramName != NULL", since the test will always evaluate as true. Medium Impact, CWE-398 How to fixWas "stMsgData->paramName" formerly declared as a pointer? Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Array compared against 0Comparing an array to null is not useful: "parentPrefix != NULL", since the test will always evaluate as true. Medium Impact, CWE-398 How to fixWas "parentPrefix" formerly declared as a pointer? Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Parse recovery warninga value of type "int (*)(void *, const char , size_t)" cannot be used to initialize an entity of type "int ()(void *, const char *, unsigned int)" Low Impact, CWE-none Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Uninitialized scalar variableUsing uninitialized value "*pathnameOfRowInIPv6PrefixTable" when calling "matchComponent". High Impact, CWE-457 Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Array compared against 0Comparing an array to null is not useful: ""Disabled" != NULL", since the test will always evaluate as true. Medium Impact, CWE-398 How to fixWas ""Disabled"" formerly declared as a pointer? Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Array compared against 0Comparing an array to null is not useful: ""Enabled" != NULL", since the test will always evaluate as true. Medium Impact, CWE-398 How to fixWas ""Enabled"" formerly declared as a pointer? Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Array compared against 0Comparing an array to null is not useful: ""Device.DeviceInfo.X_RDKCENTRAL-COM_RFC.Feature.Power.DeepSleepNotification.Enable" != NULL", since the test will always evaluate as true. Medium Impact, CWE-398 How to fixWas ""Device.DeviceInfo.X_RDKCENTRAL-COM_RFC.Feature.Power.DeepSleepNotification.Enable"" formerly declared as a pointer? Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Resource leakVariable "dmParam" going out of scope leaks the storage "dmParam.objectName" points to. High Impact, CWE-404 Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
Coverity Issue - Out-of-bounds accessOverrunning array "preferredLifetime" of 32 bytes by passing it to a function which accesses it at byte offset 127. High Impact, CWE-119 Issue locationThis issue was discovered outside the diff for this Pull Request. You can find it at: |
2 participants
No description provided.