Tay Ray Chuan <rctay89@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I tested this on top of the first 4 patches in 'rc/http-push' in 'pu', > applied on 'maint'. [1] I wonder if this should instead be queued for > 'pu' [2], since the issue only occurs there, although, conceivably, it > *could* happen without those patches in 'pu'. That "*could*" leaves me puzzled even more. Could you clarify? Do you mean "earlier, nobody tried to fclose(slot->local) twice, but with the four patches there are codepaths that do so, which triggered the bug reported by Clemens"? But then the issue couldn't have happened without those patches. If existing code always knew when slot->local is and is not valid without having to rely on its NULLness, and that was the reason why nobody tried to fclose(slot->local) twice, then I'd agree that it is a bug waiting to happen, and stuffing NULL to slot->local after the code fclose() it would be a good clean-up. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html