homepage

Christian Heimes reported (http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.devel/145253) Coverity issue:
"""
** CID 1164423: Division or modulo by zero (DIVIDE_BY_ZERO)
/Modules/audioop.c: 1375 in audioop_ratecv_impl()
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*** CID 1164423: Division or modulo by zero (DIVIDE_BY_ZERO)
/Modules/audioop.c: 1375 in audioop_ratecv_impl()
1369 without spurious overflow is the challenge; we can
1370 settle for a reasonable upper bound, though, in this
1371 case ceiling(len/inrate) * outrate. */
1372
1373 /* compute ceiling(len/inrate) without overflow */
1374 Py_ssize_t q = len > 0 ? 1 + (len - 1) / inrate : 0;
>>> CID 1164423: Division or modulo by zero (DIVIDE_BY_ZERO)
>>> In expression "9223372036854775807L / q", division by expression
"q" which may be zero has undefined behavior.
1375 if (outrate > PY_SSIZE_T_MAX / q / bytes_per_frame)
1376 str = NULL;
1377 else
1378 str = PyBytes_FromStringAndSize(NULL,
1379 q * outrate *
bytes_per_frame);
1380 }
"""
This is false positive. len should be non-negative and a case of 0 already checked just several lines before.
Is Coverity aware asserts? Perhaps this patch will silence it.

Coverity appears concerned about the division by q. It apparently knows inrate != 0. I do not see any division by len. If q is cleared up, I presume it will check bytes_per_frame.

Coverity is concerned about the value of `q` when `len < 0`. The expression
 Py_ssize_t q = len > 0 ? 1 + (len - 1) / inrate : 0;
returns a positive, non-null value for len > 0. Another check ensures that len != 0 a couple of lines earlier. In theory it is possible that len < 0. After all it's a signed integer type.
Coverity tries very hard to guess the intention of code. Because there is a check for len > 0, Coverity thinks that the code has to handle len < 0. IMO a good fix should check len >= 0 very early and replace that line with
 Py_ssize_t q = 1 + (len - 1) / inrate;

New changeset bf52f2dbfdde by Christian Heimes in branch 'default':
Issue #20394: Attempt to silence CID 1164423: Division or modulo by zero in audioop_ratecv_impl()
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/bf52f2dbfdde 

If Coverity is silenced, this patch should be backported to 2.7 and 3.3.

New changeset 0a406b6fe61f by Christian Heimes in branch 'default':
I forgot to add a Misc/NEWS entry for issue #20394
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/0a406b6fe61f 

The commit has silenced coverity's warning.

Christian, what about 2.7?

Can we have a decision as to whether or not the patch should be back ported to 2.7.