On 7/15/20 11:30 AM, Ján Tomko wrote:
On a Tuesday in 2020, Laine Stump wrote:
> On failure, this function would clear out and free the list of
> subchains it had been called with. This is unnecessary, because the
> *only* caller of this function will also clear out and free the list
> of subchains if it gets a failure from ebtablesGetSubChainInsts().
>
> (It also makes more logical sense for the function that is creating
> the entire list to be the one freeing the entire list, rather than
> having a function whose purpose is only to create *one item* on the
> list freeing the entire list).
This is the function creating the list,
I disagree with that characterization. The list is created, with 0
elements, when the caller (ebiptablesApplyNewRules()) defines it. Then
each time ebtablesGetSubChainInsts() is called, it doesn't create the
list anew, it just adds to whatever is already on the existing list - as
a matter of fact it is called multiple times and each time it adds more
items to the list without re=initializing it.
This is very much like what happens with a virBuffer - some function
creates a virBuffer by defining it and initializing it to empty, then
each time a virBuffer function is called, it adds more text to the
buffer. But if there is an error in a virBuffer function, it doesn't
clear out the buffer before returning, it just returns an error leaving
the buffer in whatever state it was in when the error occurred; it is
then up to the caller, who is the owner of the virBuffer, to clear it out.
I think it makes sense
to not leave anything allocated in case of failure.
Aside from making the code simpler and cleaner, I think it doesn't make
sense for one invocation of the function to clear out anything that was
put into the list by *a different* invocation of the function. If you're
going to be a purist about it, then a failed ebtablesGetSubChainInsts()
should remove from the list *only those items that were added during the
current call* and nothing else.
But that's just pedantic nitpicking (Hey, *you* started the nitpicking
though :-P)
(Also, there is only one caller of ebtablesGetSubChainInsts(), and
whenever ebtablesGetSubChainInsts() fails, the *very next thing* that
caller does is to clear out the entire list. So in fact, "nothing is
left allocated in case of failure".)
Jano
>
> Signed-off-by: Laine Stump <laine(a)redhat.com>
My S-o-b stands. I still think this is the right thing to do.
>
> ---
> src/nwfilter/nwfilter_ebiptables_driver.c | 6 ------
> 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>