On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 14:37 -0400, Joshua Brindle wrote:
> Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 12:11 -0400, Karl MacMillan wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 11:48 -0400, Joshua Brindle wrote:
> >>
> > <snip>
> >
> >>>>>> +int sepol_policy_create(struct sepol_handle *h, struct sepol_policy **policy)
> >>>>>> +{
> >>>>>> + int ret;
> >>>>>> + struct sepol_policy *x;
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + *policy = NULL;
> >>>>>> + x = calloc(1, sizeof(struct sepol_policy));
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I am adverse to calloc used on structs, this implicitly initializes the
> >>>>> struct and makes it harder to update the initial state. Why not have an
> >>>>> explicit initializer?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> I like calloc because you don't have to explicitly set all of the
> >>>> members and the code tends (in my experience) to be more reliable in the
> >>>> face of change because of this. I don't have a strong opinion though -
> >>>> what do others think?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> an initializer that does memset would be just as reliable in the face of
> >>> change and have the additional advantage of being maintainable when
> >>> initial state changes.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I think I'm missing something - what is the difference between malloc +
> >> memset and calloc? And what do you mean by initializer?
> >>
> >
> > I'd say stay with calloc here.
> >
> >
>
> Umm, and then when the initial state changes we have to audit every user
> of the struct to make sure its initialized correctly instead of just
> doing it from the beginning and using an initialization function?

This is the initialization (and allocation) function for struct sepol_policy.

-- 
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency


--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.