seccomp: refactor error handling#2023
Conversation
Fix error leak. Fix incorrect assumption about err value. Closes: containers#2021 Closes: containers#2022 Signed-off-by: Erik Sjölund <erik.sjolund@gmail.com>
Summary of ChangesHello @eriksjolund, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request significantly enhances the robustness and correctness of seccomp-related error handling within the Highlights
🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Changelog
Activity
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request refactors the error handling in the seccomp-related functions get_seccomp_operator and get_seccomp_action. The changes correctly address an error leak where specific error information was being discarded, and fix a bug where an error return value was ambiguous and could be misinterpreted as a valid seccomp action. The new implementation uses a standard C pattern of returning an error code and passing values via output parameters, which improves robustness and clarity. The changes are well-implemented and correctly applied at all call sites. Overall, this is a great improvement to the code's correctness and maintainability.
|
I'm not quite sure about what types to use, like for instance I see for example that |
|
TMT tests failed. @containers/packit-build please check. |
Fix error leak.
Fix incorrect assumption about err value.
Closes: #2021
Closes: #2022