From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bill.c.roberts@gmail.com (William Roberts) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 10:37:24 -0700 Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH] fc_sort: memory leakages (was: Pull Request for fixing memory leak warning) In-Reply-To: <1506710626.25420.2.camel@trentalancia.com> References: <1506643940.32317.6.camel@trentalancia.com> <1506703966.24492.1.camel@trentalancia.com> <1506710626.25420.2.camel@trentalancia.com> Message-ID: To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Guido Trentalancia via refpolicy wrote: > 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 >> 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 >> > > 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. Sure I get that. Actually it wasn't me that discovered the bug, I am just middle manning something for others. > > Regards, > > Guido > _______________________________________________ > refpolicy mailing list > refpolicy at oss.tresys.com > http://oss.tresys.com/mailman/listinfo/refpolicy -- Respectfully, William C Roberts