Eric Blake wrote: > On 03/29/2010 10:37 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: >> Another one caught by clang: >> >> Note the first test to see if "inst" may be NULL. >> Then, in the following loop, "inst" is unconditionally >> dereferenced via "inst[i]". There are other unprotected >> used of "inst[i]" below, too. >> >> Rather than trying to protect all uses, one by one, I chose >> to return "success" when given an empty list of rules. > > ACK that your patch is the minimal fix to avoid a segfault, but we > should probably get Stefan's input on whether returning success on an > empty input is the best course of behavior. Ok. I've Cc'd him. -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list