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: References: <1506643940.32317.6.camel@trentalancia.com> <1506703966.24492.1.camel@trentalancia.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 > 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. Regards, Guido