On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 5:46 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This series fixes memory leaks in the unpack-trees and dir APIs for > all their callers. There are several good fixes in this series. Thanks for working on them! > There's been a discussion between myself & Elijah > on his en/removing-untracked-fixes series[1] about the memory leak > fixing aspect of his series. Not really, the memory leak fixing aspect of my series was patch 2; most of our discussion was on patch 4, including your footnote link. Patch 4 did not in any way involve fixing a memory leak, which you yourself later acknowledged. So most of our discussion was mostly about aspects _other_ than leak fixing. > I've got locally queued patches that fix widespread memory leaks in > the test suite and make much of it pass under SANITIZE=leak, once the > common leaks in revisions.c (git rev-list/show/log etc.), "checkout", > "dir" and "unpack-trees" are fixed a lot of tests become entirely > leak-free, as much code that needs to setup various basic things will > require one of those commands. Yaay! This is great stuff! > I think that the more narrow fixes[2] to the memory leaks around > unpack-trees in Elijah's series[3] are better skipped and that series > rebased on top of this one (I'll submit an RFC version of his that is > rebased on this as a follow-up). I *strongly* disagree. > I.e. his solves a very small amount of the memory leaks in this area, > whereas this is something I've got running as part of end-to-end > SANITIZE=leak testing, so I think that the difference in approaches we > picked when it comes to fixing them is likely because of that. > > E.g. continuing to allocate the "struct dir_struct" on the heap in his > version[4] in his is, I think, something that makes more sense for > fixes that haven't pulled at the thread of how much merge-recursive.c > is making that question of ownerhip confusing. There's also changen in > his that'll become simpler as the complexity of the underlying APIs > has gone away, e.g. [6]. *Sigh*. unpack_trees_options->dir is not allocated on the heap at the end of my series. I could understand missing that in the patches, but I've also pointed it out to you two additional times in discussions on the patches so far. And you supposedly looked at all the patches again while rebasing and adding your signed-off-by. You also continue to refer to our discussion as though it was about leakfixes, even though the patch we discussed in my series did not involve any leak fixing. I pointed that out and you said you stood corrected (last comment at https://lore.kernel.org/git/87k0ivpzfx.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/), but now you're referring to it that way again? Even after rebasing my series and adding your Signed-off-by, suggesting you should understand it? The leakfix was a different patch of the series, namely patch #2. I agree that merge-recursive.c has confusing points. I totally agree. Unfortunately, both your patches that touch merge-recursive.c make it worse; more so than the problems you were trying to fix in that file. > 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/87ilyjviiy.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > 2. https://lore.kernel.org/git/0c74285b25311c83bb158cf89a551160a0f3a5d3.1632760428.git.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx/ > 3. https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.1036.v3.git.1632760428.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx/ > 4. https://lore.kernel.org/git/0d119142778dce8617dd9b2c102b5f5bfdc9dc0f.1632760428.git.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx/ > 6. https://lore.kernel.org/git/f1a0700e598e52d6cdb507fe8a09c4fa9291c982.1632760428.git.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx/ > ... > merge-recursive.c: call a new unpack_trees_options_init() function > > Details how merge-recursive.c calls unpack_trees() differently than > every other caller when it comes to "struct unpack_trees_options" > setup. Saying: "merge-recursive.c has a heap-allocated unpack_trees_options, and thus can't naturally use UNPACK_TREES_OPTIONS_INIT" would have been shorter, and also explained things in full detail. Your version makes it sound like it's doing something really weird and needs a much more expansive explanation. > unpack-trees.[ch]: embed "dir" in "struct unpack_trees_options" > > Elijah's series ends up with a "dir" still heap-allocated in "struct > unpack_trees_options", just dynamically and "privately". As noted above, this is not true. I'm confused why you try to claim otherwise. (I mean, it's really not all that important, I'm just confused why you find it important to call out, especially when the stack-based point was highlighted multiple times before but you still insist on referring to it as heap-allocated.) ... > unpack-trees: don't leak memory in verify_clean_subdirectory() > merge.c: avoid duplicate unpack_trees_options_release() code > built-ins: plug memory leaks with unpack_trees_options_release() > > A lot of memory leak fixes both in unpack-trees.c and its users, only > a subset of this is in Elijah's series. Not sure why you feel the need to include the final phrase there; it almost feels like you're trying to portray my series as a leakfix, which feels misleading. My series wasn't even about fixing leaks. In my first round, I knew of leaks, and intentionally attempted to avoid fixing them because it was orthogonal to the point of my series (I figured I could come back in a follow-on series and deal with it). In a subsequent round, I fixed one leak incidentally, in part because you called it out, but more so because otherwise when I attempted to consolidate code into one place it would appear to reviewers that the consolidated code didn't match some of the callers. In particular, some of the sites had a leak and others didn't. Adding a preparatory leakfix (again, patch #2, NOT patch #4) made clear that the later consolidation (in patch #4) really was just that -- moving several identical code chunks into a single place. ....anyway, all that said, you've got some good fixes in this series. You've also got three very problematic bits that need to be ripped out. And you should rebase this series on top of v3 of en/removing-untracked-fixes.
