Re: [PATCH] hw/xen: Clarify (lack of) error handling in transaction_commit()

[Paul Durrant <xadimgnik@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 20/06/2023 18:58, David Woodhouse wrote:
> From: David Woodhouse <dwmw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Coverity was unhappy (CID 1508359) because we didn't check the return of
> init_walk_op() in transaction_commit(), despite doing so at every other
> call site.
>
> Strictly speaking, this is a false positive since it can never fail. It
> only fails for invalid user input (transaction ID or path), and both of
> those are hard-coded to known sane values in this invocation.
>
> But Coverity doesn't know that, and neither does the casual reader of the
> code.
>
> Returning an error here would be weird, since the transaction *is*
> committed by this point; all the walk_op is doing is firing watches on
> the newly-committed changed nodes. So make it a g_assert(!ret), since
> it really should never happen.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   hw/i386/kvm/xenstore_impl.c | 12 +++++++++++-
>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Reviewed-by: Paul Durrant <paul@xxxxxxx>