0xAX <kuleshovmail@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Signed-off-by: 0xAX <kuleshovmail@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
The comment on names I've already mentioned elsewhere.
You need a better explanation than a "no log message", as you are
not doing "system-path memory leak fix".
You are doing a lot more. Perhaps the story would start like this:
system_path(): make the callers own the returned string
The function sometimes returns a newly allocated string and
sometimes returns a borrowed string, the latter of which the
callers must not free().
The existing callers all assume that the return value belongs to
the callee and most of them copy it with strdup() when they want
to keep it around. They end up leaking the returned copy when
the callee returned a new string.
Change the contract between the callers and system_path() to
make the returned string owned by the callers; they are
responsible for freeing it when done, but they do not have to
make their own copy to store it away.
This accidentally fixes some unsafe callers as well. For
example, ...
> exec_cmd.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++---------
> exec_cmd.h | 4 ++--
> git.c | 12 +++++++++---
Even though I said that this changes the contract between the caller
and the callee and make things wasteful for some, I personally think
it is going in the right direction.
The change accidentally fixes some unsafe callers. For example, the
first hit from "git grep system_path" is this:
attr.c- static const char *system_wide;
attr.c- if (!system_wide)
attr.c: system_wide = system_path(ETC_GITATTRIBUTES);
attr.c- return system_wide;
This is obviously unsafe for a volatile return value from the callee
and needs to have strdup() on it, but with the patch there no longer
is need for such a caller-side strdup().
But this change also introduces new bugs, I think. For example, the
second hit from "git grep system_path" is this:
builtin/help.c: strbuf_addstr(&new_path, system_path(GIT_MAN_PATH));
Now the caller owns and is responsible for freeing the returned
value, but without opening the file in question in an editor or a
pager we can tell immediately that there is no way this line is not
adding a new memory leak.
> index 698e752..08f8f80 100644
> --- a/exec_cmd.c
> +++ b/exec_cmd.c
> @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
> static const char *argv_exec_path;
> static const char *argv0_path;
>
> -const char *system_path(const char *path)
> +char *system_path(const char *path)
> {
> #ifdef RUNTIME_PREFIX
> static const char *prefix;
> @@ -14,9 +14,10 @@ const char *system_path(const char *path)
> static const char *prefix = PREFIX;
> #endif
> struct strbuf d = STRBUF_INIT;
> + char *new_path = NULL;
>
> if (is_absolute_path(path))
> - return path;
> + return strdup(path);
>
> #ifdef RUNTIME_PREFIX
> assert(argv0_path);
> @@ -32,10 +33,13 @@ const char *system_path(const char *path)
> "Using static fallback '%s'.\n", prefix);
> }
> #endif
> -
> strbuf_addf(&d, "%s/%s", prefix, path);
> - path = strbuf_detach(&d, NULL);
> - return path;
> + new_path = malloc((strlen(prefix) + strlen(path)) + 2);
> + sprintf(new_path, "%s/%s", prefix, path);
> +
> + strbuf_release(&d);
> +
> + return new_path;
Are you duplicating what strbuf_addf() is doing on the strbuf d,
manually creating the same in new_path, while discarding what the
existing code you did not remove with this patch already computed?
Isn't it sufficient to add strdup(path) for the absolute case and do
nothing else to this function? I have no idea what you are doing
here.
--
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