Hi Miquel
Le 22/12/2020 à 08:46, Miquel Raynal a écrit :
Hi Richard,
Richard Genoud <richard.gen...@posteo.net> wrote on Mon, 21 Dec 2020
17:17:56 +0100:
Hi Miquel
Le 21/12/2020 à 16:49, Miquel Raynal a écrit :
Hi Richard,
Richard Genoud <richard.gen...@posteo.net> wrote on Mon, 21 Dec 2020
16:40:51 +0100:
Hi Miquel,
Le 21/12/2020 à 16:29, Miquel Raynal a écrit :
Hi Richard,
Richard Genoud <richard.gen...@posteo.net> wrote on Mon, 21 Dec 2020
16:26:00 +0100:
>>>> Le 21/12/2020 à 16:14, Miquel Raynal a écrit :
Hi Richard,
Richard Genoud <richard.gen...@posteo.net> wrote on Mon, 21 Dec 2020
16:06:37 +0100:
>>>> Hi Miquel,
Le 18/12/2020 à 19:50, Miquel Raynal a écrit :
Hi Richard,
Richard Genoud <richard.gen...@posteo.net> wrote on Fri, 18 Dec 2020
15:24:40 +0100:
>>>> token_count may be != 0 and token_list not yet allocated when the out
code is reached
Wouldn't it be better to initialize token_count than adding an
(obscure) indentation level?
Well, token_count is initialized :
token_count = sqfs_count_tokens(filename);
But token_list is not yet populated. It is some lines bellow:
token_list = malloc(token_count * sizeof(char *));
But I could use something like that, maybe it's clearer :
for (j = 0; (token_list != NULL) && (j < token_count); j++)
free(token_list[j]);
I had a look at the code, the error path is clearly not correctly
organized.
I think the right approach would be to have real labels like,
free_token_list, free_this, free_that and for each of them only do the
right cleanup. Doing so should fix the issue.
So you're suggesting to revert this ?
commit ea1b1651c6a8 ("fs/squashfs: sqfs_opendir: simplify error handling")
Yes (our e-mails crossed each other), I think it's best to have a well
organized error path. Of course this error path is maybe faulty, in
this case it must be fixed. But I personally prefer the revert + fix
approach.
>>
But I really don't see why it's obscure to test a pointer before dereference.
Testing a pointer before dereference is not obscure.
Testing a pointer in an error path because the error path is common to
all 10 different possible failure cases and might free the content of an
array that has not been allocated yet: this is obscure.
Maybe I should I've wrote :
if (token_list != NULL)
for (j = 0; j < token_count; j++)
free(token_list[j]);
Does it looks better ?
Not really :)
Ok, so if you insist, I send the revert correcting the coverity issue.
But in this case, the error management won't be coherent with the rest of the
file.
(And I *really* don't want to revert to the old error handling for every single
function.)
Well, I was against taking this direction from the beginning, now we
are at a point where the error path must be fixed because you need to
take extra precautions that you would have avoided by keeping the well
organized labels.
Ok, let's agree to disagree.
You have a strong opinion on your way to do things, and so do I.
No need to give me the "I told you so" card here, because it won't help in
anyway.
Thanks,
Miquèl
Regards,
Richard
