Hi Mathieu, Mathieu Othacehe <[email protected]> skribis:
>> Longer-term it would be good to audit Guile-Parted: it probably >> shouldn’t be possible for Guile-Parted to refer to “defunct” Parted >> objects. > > Yup, with hindsight I realize that keeping Guile-Parted so low-level was > a mistake. With a few more abstractions (gnu installer parted) could be > less complicated. I don’t know; as a rule of thumb, I think it’s good to make bindings a direct mapping to the underlying library, and to build abstractions on top of that. That said, my point was more that it shouldn’t be possible to get a null-pointer exception or a SIGSEGV when using Guile-Parted, even if you make a mistake. In this case, it seems that the underlying C object had been reclaimed somehow; the bindings should protect against that. Thoughts? Ludo’.
