On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 15:16:35 +0100, Ján Tomko wrote: > On a Friday in 2022, Jiri Denemark wrote: > >On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 14:34:04 +0100, Jiri Denemark wrote: > >> This partially reverts commit 0fc4a43d248b86fd54ad7323beb66faec8c1043c. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> tests/securityselinuxlabeltest.c | 4 +++- > >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/tests/securityselinuxlabeltest.c b/tests/securityselinuxlabeltest.c > >> index dfe9d38d34..83532d8090 100644 > >> --- a/tests/securityselinuxlabeltest.c > >> +++ b/tests/securityselinuxlabeltest.c > >> @@ -247,8 +247,10 @@ testSELinuxCheckLabels(testSELinuxFile *files, size_t nfiles) > >> virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, > >> "File %s context '%s' did not match expected '%s'", > >> files[i].file, ctx, files[i].context); > >> + freecon(ctx); > >> return -1; > >> } > >> + freecon(ctx); > >> } > >> return 0; > >> } > > > >Self-NACK > > > >getfilecon is mocked in this test so not using freecon() was actually > >correct. > > > > Even if it was from libselinux [0], is there something wrong with using > plain free for a char * variable? > > We seem to have exactly one user of xmlFree which is a similar function. > > [0] https://github.com/SELinuxProject/selinux/blob/master/libselinux/src/freecon.c#L6 Well, not really, unless the library decides to use a different allocator which it easily can since the documentation says you should be using freecon(). And we use freecon in other places in our code to comply with this. Anyway, I really wish libraries did not invent their own free functions for char *. Jirka
