On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 07:00:09AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 04/02/2014 06:44 AM, Ján Tomko wrote: > > Every security driver has domainGenSecurityLabel defined. > > As currently written. But Dan wrote the manager to be flexible to > future drivers that omit obvious functions. > > This patch makes sense for silencing Coverity, but I think it is > incomplete unless you also fix the registration with the manager to > forcefully require that all drivers supply callback functions that we > are going to blindly assume exist, rather than the current status quo of > allowing a driver to omit callbacks even if none of them do. That is, > virSecurityManagerNewDriver() should be taught to require > drv->domainGenSecurityLabel is non-NULL. Further this change makes domainGenSecurityLabel an exception to the rule now, since all others have checks for NULL. I don't object to removing the checks for NULL and mandating non-NULL, but we should do it for all the callbacks, or none of the callbacks. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list