On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:49 AM, William Roberts <bill.c.roberts@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Nicolas Iooss <nicolas.iooss@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:51 PM, William Roberts >> <bill.c.roberts@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> I see lots of repeating blocks, would it make more sense to goto an >>> error label and free them then return -1? >> >> Both trans_context() and untrans_context() currently define "char >> *ltrans = NULL, *utrans = NULL;" and "char *lrange = NULL, *urange = >> NULL;" in the body of a for loop. Introducing an error label at the >> end of these functions requires moving these definition outside of the >> loop (which could introduce side effects) and introducing the label at >> the end of the loop makes the code less readable, IMHO. I guess this >> could explain why the current code does not use a "goto error" or >> "goto clean" approach and leaks memory where an error occurs. >> >> Anyway, if you are fine with moving the definitions of some variables >> (ltrans and utrans for trans_context(), lrange and urange for >> untrans_context()), I can write, test and send a new patch with a >> "goto error" instead of several free(). > > This seems fine. I just applied and tested this (finally). Ack. Thanks. I applied the 3 patches that I sent. Nicolas _______________________________________________ Selinux mailing list Selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
