From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: guido@trentalancia.com (Guido Trentalancia)
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 20:43:46 +0200
Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH] fc_sort: memory leakages (was: Pull Request
 for fixing memory leak warning)
In-Reply-To: <CAFftDdpSGRtE8wc4eTy66EPN3PAm9oE=aLCB_P0NvH4kHCH+1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFftDdr6uZxWz9FPBnP4RW0Y-KLcS7aFTq0hHaF_dNB6K8wi2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<1506643940.32317.6.camel@trentalancia.com>
	<CAFftDdqy_BxjsPZjqqPFQZxhVA8sHG1Fq1adfCgjKAkuBsNk-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<1506703966.24492.1.camel@trentalancia.com>
	<CAFftDdpSGRtE8wc4eTy66EPN3PAm9oE=aLCB_P0NvH4kHCH+1w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1506710626.25420.2.camel@trentalancia.com>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On Fri, 29/09/2017 at 09.30 -0700, William Roberts wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Guido Trentalancia via refpolicy
> <refpolicy@oss.tresys.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 28/09/2017 at 15.24 -0700, William Roberts wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Guido Trentalancia via refpolicy
> > > <refpolicy@oss.tresys.com> wrote:

[...]

> > > So hopefully they can try it and let us know if it avoids the
> > > errors
> > > with their analysis tools,
> > > if valgrind reports 0 leaks, it likely will satisfy the static
> > > analysis.
> > 
> > The patch that I attached does not work properly and it needs
> > further
> > work, because it leads to a failure in getline() and an empty
> > output
> > file.
> > 
> > I hope it helps.
> 
> That's not very helpful IMHO, but thanks anyways. They took the PR
> upstream, so that should fix there static analysis issue and avoid
> any
> forking.

Yes, I know it's not particularly helpful. I have posted mainly because
the previous one was broken.

At the moment, I don't have time to look at it any further. Also, I do
not use the same analyzer that you have used, so I cannot reproduce the
same problem.

Regards,

Guido