On Sat, 2014-03-08 at 05:02PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 07/03/14 16:24, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
> > Check the return value of malloc() before dereferencing the returned
> > pointer.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sören Brinkmann <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > src/pacman/upgrade.c | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/pacman/upgrade.c b/src/pacman/upgrade.c
> > index 5416f6180b39..19aa17218ce4 100644
> > --- a/src/pacman/upgrade.c
> > +++ b/src/pacman/upgrade.c
> > @@ -51,6 +51,9 @@ int pacman_upgrade(alpm_list_t *targets)
> > */
> > for(i = targets; i; i = alpm_list_next(i)) {
> > int *r = malloc(sizeof(int));
> > + if(r == NULL) {
> > + return 1;
> > + }
> >
> > if(strstr(i->data, "://")) {
> > char *str = alpm_fetch_pkgurl(config->handle, i->data);
> >
>
> Fine. Although if malloc of an int fails, I'm not sure we can do a lot!
Right, but bailing out gracefully is probably better than a segfault? I
do not really mind. If you don't want it, don't apply it. But not
checking the return value of malloc() is simply wrong, IMHO.
Sören
