CID 638286: Concurrent data access violations (MISSING_LOCK). This
complains about accessing "zone->notifyctx.notify_acl" without holding
the lock "dns_zone.lock". Elsewhere, reading this data does have the
lock, so it makes sense that in the getter function this must also be
so. However, the function is unused so we can just remove it.
CID 638287: Concurrent data access violations (MISSING_LOCK). This
complains about accessing "zone->locked" without holding the lock
"dns_zone.lock". I think this is a false positive as "dns__zone_lock()"
and "dns__zone_unlock() are wrappers around "LOCK_ZONE()" and
"UNLOCK_ZONE()" and where these macros were used they were only
replaced with the internal zone functions. Moreover, "zone->locked"
is only accessed in these macros (and "TRYLOCK_ZONE()" and
"LOCKED_ZONE()").
*\li 'acl' to be valid acl.
*/
-dns_acl_t *
-dns_zone_getnotifyacl(dns_zone_t *zone);
-/*%<
- * Returns the current notify acl or NULL.
- *
- * Require:
- *\li 'zone' to be a valid zone.
- *
- * Returns:
- *\li acl a pointer to the acl.
- *\li NULL
- */
-
dns_acl_t *
dns_zone_getqueryacl(dns_zone_t *zone);
/*%<
UNLOCK_ZONE(zone);
}
-dns_acl_t *
-dns_zone_getnotifyacl(dns_zone_t *zone) {
- REQUIRE(DNS_ZONE_VALID(zone));
-
- return zone->notifyctx.notify_acl;
-}
-
dns_acl_t *
dns_zone_getqueryacl(dns_zone_t *zone) {
REQUIRE(DNS_ZONE_VALID(zone));