On 07/11/2017 11:52 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 06/03/2017 03:27 PM, John Ferlan wrote:
Move the consumption of @newdef into virSecretObjNew and then handle that in the calling path. Because on error the calling code expects to free @newdef, unset obj->def for the creation failure error paths.
Signed-off-by: John Ferlan <jferlan@redhat.com> --- src/conf/virsecretobj.c | 14 +++++++++----- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/conf/virsecretobj.c b/src/conf/virsecretobj.c index c0bcfab..ca13cf8 100644 --- a/src/conf/virsecretobj.c +++ b/src/conf/virsecretobj.c @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ virSecretObjOnceInit(void) VIR_ONCE_GLOBAL_INIT(virSecretObj)
static virSecretObjPtr -virSecretObjNew(void) +virSecretObjNew(virSecretDefPtr def) { virSecretObjPtr obj;
@@ -98,6 +98,7 @@ virSecretObjNew(void) return NULL;
virObjectLock(obj); + obj->def = def;
return obj; } @@ -384,20 +385,23 @@ virSecretObjListAdd(virSecretObjListPtr secrets, goto error; }
- if (!(obj = virSecretObjNew())) + if (!(obj = virSecretObjNew(newdef))) goto cleanup;
/* Generate the possible configFile and base64File strings * using the configDir, uuidstr, and appropriate suffix */ if (!(obj->configFile = virFileBuildPath(configDir, uuidstr, ".xml")) || - !(obj->base64File = virFileBuildPath(configDir, uuidstr, ".base64"))) + !(obj->base64File = virFileBuildPath(configDir, uuidstr, ".base64"))) { + obj->def = NULL; goto error; + }
I don't quite see the value of this patch, esp. because you have to manually unset the ->def in each error path.
Michal
Well that's part of that "longer term" vision thing where I was having the @def be consumed in a new object. I've had to scale that back a bit due to comments related to the object, but this code was already was all being done in parallel - so that's why it's like that. I could drop this one, although having @def consumed by vir*ObjNew() is something that I have been doing throughout the various changes. So far, virInterfaceObjNew already has this, but patches for nwfilter and nodedev also follow the same pattern. I'm 50/50 right now on it and can drop it if you'd prefer. Yes, the drawback is "obvious" that on failure, clearing obj->def needs to be done to avoid the potential double free problem. John