Re: [PATCH 01/15] read-cache: fix memleak
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 23:04:14
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2016-06-15 · [PATCH 01/15] read-cache: fix memleak · Stefan Beller <hidden>
Stefan Beller [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk
`ce` is allocated in make_cache_entry and should be freed if it is not used any more. refresh_cache_entry as a wrapper around refresh_cache_ent will either return `ce` or a new updated cache entry which is allocated to new memory. In that case we need to free `ce` ourselfs. Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <redacted> --- read-cache.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c index 8d71860..f72ea9f 100644 --- a/read-cache.c +++ b/read-cache.c@@ -747,6 +747,8 @@ struct cache_entry *make_cache_entry(unsigned int mode, free(ce); return NULL; } else { + if (ret != ce) + free(ce); return ret; } }
Good, I vaguely recall that we did something similar in another
codepath that forgot the fact that refresh_cache_entry() may make
the incoming ce unnecessary.
As the rule is "if ret is different from ce, then ce must be freed"
in this codepath, I wonder if this is easier to read:
ret = refresh_cache_entry(ce, ...);
if (ret != ce)
free(ce);
return ret;