On 06/18/2009 10:23 AM, Joshua Brindle wrote:
Daniel J Walsh wrote:
On 05/19/2009 12:16 PM, Chad Sellers wrote:
On 5/18/09 2:10 PM, "Daniel J Walsh"<dwalsh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Basically we need to search for all interfaces that return an int and
set those up as python exception handlers.
I presume this supercedes the patch submitted on March 4 titled
"Patch to
python bindings" which used a single generic exception handler. Is that
correct? Why the switch from a generic exception handler to a shell
script
to generate lots of specific exception handlers?
Thanks,
Chad
--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to
majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
Yes, that patch caused certain interfaces to not work if they did not
return int.
This doesn't strike me as the best way to handle it. Assuming all
functions that return an int returns it as a return code is a little
overzealous. For example selinux_file_context_cmp() returns 1, 0, -1 for
comparison. It is only not included in the exception.sh output by
accident it appears (it is defined as int selinux_file_context_cmp(...)
rather than extern int.
I am willing to accept better ideas. Admittedly this is a hack, but I
have not seen a bug since implementing. I guess we should tell python
when we have exceptions to the rule, like selinux_file_context_cmp
Which brings up the next point, there are a handful of functions in
selinux.h that don't have extern which means exception handlers aren't
made for them.
--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
