Re: [PATCH 3/5] run-command API users: use strvec_pushv(), not argv assignment

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason  [off-list ref] writes:

We used to use the caller-supplied args, run-command API borrowed
that strvec by pointing at cp.argv, and because it is borrowed,
capture_command() did not use cp.args/cp.env_array and there was no
leak inside run-command API side, whether capture_command succeeded
or failed.  The code was using its own args, so it already correctly
releases it (we can see one such strvec_clear() here).
 
OK.

I gave the remainder only a cursory look so I cannot call it quite
"reviewed", but presumably all the other changes in this patch are
the same way?

Thanks.

On Mon, Nov 22 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason  [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

diff --git a/add-patch.c b/add-patch.c
index 8c41cdfe39b..573eef0cc4a 100644
--- a/add-patch.c
+++ b/add-patch.c

@@ -413,7 +413,7 @@ static int parse_diff(struct add_p_state *s, const struct pathspec *ps)
 		strvec_push(&args, ps->items[i].original);
 
 	setup_child_process(s, &cp, NULL);
-	cp.argv = args.v;
+	strvec_pushv(&cp.args, args.v);
 	res = capture_command(&cp, plain, 0);
 	if (res) {
 		strvec_clear(&args);

@@ -431,7 +431,7 @@ static int parse_diff(struct add_p_state *s, const struct pathspec *ps)
 
 		setup_child_process(s, &colored_cp, NULL);
 		xsnprintf((char *)args.v[color_arg_index], 8, "--color");
-		colored_cp.argv = args.v;
+		strvec_pushv(&colored_cp.args, args.v);
 		colored = &s->colored;
 		res = capture_command(&colored_cp, colored, 0);
 		strvec_clear(&args);

We used to use the caller-supplied args, run-command API borrowed
that strvec by pointing at cp.argv, and because it is borrowed,
capture_command() did not use cp.args/cp.env_array and there was no
leak inside run-command API side, whether capture_command succeeded
or failed.  The code was using its own args, so it already correctly
releases it (we can see one such strvec_clear() here).
 
OK.

I gave the remainder only a cursory look so I cannot call it quite
"reviewed", but presumably all the other changes in this patch are
the same way?

Yes, I tried to group all of these cases together.