Re: [PATCH] send-pack: clean up extra_have oid array

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 10:40:21AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> There is an early exit from the function that would bypass these
> clean-up.  Perhaps something like this on top?
> 
>  builtin/send-pack.c | 8 +++++---
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git c/builtin/send-pack.c w/builtin/send-pack.c
> index b28da7ddd7..6ce9f6665a 100644
> --- c/builtin/send-pack.c
> +++ w/builtin/send-pack.c
> @@ -305,9 +305,10 @@ int cmd_send_pack(int argc,
>  		flags |= MATCH_REFS_MIRROR;
>  
>  	/* match them up */
> -	if (match_push_refs(local_refs, &remote_refs, &rs, flags))
> -		return -1;
> -
> +	if (match_push_refs(local_refs, &remote_refs, &rs, flags)) {
> +		ret = -1;
> +		goto cleanup;
> +	}
>  	if (!is_empty_cas(&cas))
>  		apply_push_cas(&cas, remote, remote_refs);
>  
> @@ -340,6 +341,7 @@ int cmd_send_pack(int argc,
>  		/* stable plumbing output; do not modify or localize */
>  		fprintf(stderr, "Everything up-to-date\n");
>  
> +cleanup:
>  	string_list_clear(&push_options, 0);
>  	free_refs(remote_refs);
>  	free_refs(local_refs);

This made me wonder if the remote_refs out-parameter is valid after
match_push_refs() returns failure (especially since we do not initialize
it at the top of the function).

I think the answer is "yes"; it is both an in-parameter and an
out-parameter, and will have been earlier set up via get_remote_heads().
So even on the failure case, match_push_refs() will leave it untouched
and it is still valid (and needs to be cleaned up).

-Peff




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux