Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Coverity CID :216787] Wrong sizeof argument in tests/kernel/mem_heap/mheap_api_concept/src/test_mheap_api.c #31673

Closed
zephyrbot opened this issue Jan 26, 2021 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
bug The issue is a bug, or the PR is fixing a bug Coverity A Coverity detected issue or its fix priority: low Low impact/importance bug

Comments

@zephyrbot
Copy link
Collaborator

Static code scan issues found in file:

https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/tree/f91e9fba51e5da46ee5c6822f8656713d74a6ecf/tests/kernel/mem_heap/mheap_api_concept/src/test_mheap_api.c#L103

Category: Incorrect expression
Function: test_k_aligned_alloc
Component: Tests
CID: 216787

Details:

97          * alignment. The backing allocator would naturally round up to
98          * some minimal block size. This would make k_aligned_alloc()
99          * more like posix_memalign() instead of aligned_alloc(), but
100          * the benefit is that k_malloc() can then just be a wrapper
101          * around k_aligned_alloc().
102          */
>>>     CID 216787:  Incorrect expression  (SIZEOF_MISMATCH)
>>>     Passing argument "4U /* sizeof (void *) */" to function "k_aligned_alloc" which returns a value of type "void *" is suspicious.
103         r = k_aligned_alloc(sizeof(void *), 1);
104         /* allocation succeeds */
105         zassert_not_equal(NULL, r, "aligned alloc of 1 byte failed");
106         /* r is suitably aligned */
107         zassert_equal(0, (uintptr_t)r % sizeof(void *),
108             "%p not %u-byte-aligned",

Please fix or provide comments in coverity using the link:

https://scan9.coverity.com/reports.htm#v32951/p12996.

Note: This issue was created automatically. Priority was set based on classification
of the file affected and the impact field in coverity. Assignees were set using the CODEOWNERS file.

@zephyrbot zephyrbot added bug The issue is a bug, or the PR is fixing a bug Coverity A Coverity detected issue or its fix priority: low Low impact/importance bug labels Jan 26, 2021
@pabigot
Copy link
Collaborator

pabigot commented Feb 2, 2021

2021-02-01 00:53:27 (change by @cfriedt) Classification: Unclassified → False Positive

@pabigot pabigot closed this as completed Feb 2, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug The issue is a bug, or the PR is fixing a bug Coverity A Coverity detected issue or its fix priority: low Low impact/importance bug
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants