Re: Re: [PATCH] maintenance: fix two memory leaks

"lilinchao@oschina.cn" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

@@ -1999,6 +2000,7 @@ static int update_background_schedule(int enable)

die("unknown background scheduler: %s", scheduler);

rollback_lock_file(&lk);
+	free(lock_path);

Based on your change, I think when "hold_lock_file_for_update()<0", we should also free local_path
Thanks

Meaning something like this?


builtin/gc.c | 9 +++++++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git c/builtin/gc.c w/builtin/gc.c
index 98a803196b..50565c37c7 100644
--- c/builtin/gc.c
+++ w/builtin/gc.c

@@ -1971,8 +1971,10 @@ static int update_background_schedule(int enable)

cmd = sep + 1;
}

-	if (hold_lock_file_for_update(&lk, lock_path, LOCK_NO_DEREF) < 0)
-	return error(_("another process is scheduling background maintenance"));
+	if (hold_lock_file_for_update(&lk, lock_path, LOCK_NO_DEREF) < 0) {
+	result = error(_("another process is scheduling background maintenance"));
+	goto cleanup;
+	}

if (!strcmp(scheduler, "launchctl"))
result = launchctl_update_schedule(enable, get_lock_file_fd(&lk), cmd);

@@ -1984,6 +1986,9 @@ static int update_background_schedule(int enable)

die("unknown background scheduler: %s", scheduler);

rollback_lock_file(&lk);
+
+cleanup:
+	free(lock_path);
free(testing);
return result;
}