On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:23:44PM -0800, Stefan Beller wrote:
> + const char *sha1_lf;
>
> if (!lock) {
> errno = EINVAL;
> @@ -3104,8 +3104,9 @@ static int write_ref_sha1(struct ref_lock *lock,
> errno = EINVAL;
> return -1;
> }
> - if (write_in_full_to_lockfile(lock->lk, sha1_to_hex(sha1), 40) != 40 ||
> - write_in_full_to_lockfile(lock->lk, &term, 1) != 1 ||
> +
> + sha1_lf = xstrfmt("%s\n", sha1_to_hex(sha1));
> + if (write_in_full_to_lockfile(lock->lk, sha1_lf, 41) != 41 ||
> close_ref(lock) < 0) {
> int save_errno = errno;
> error("Couldn't write %s", lock->lk->filename.buf);
> @@ -3113,6 +3114,7 @@ static int write_ref_sha1(struct ref_lock *lock,
> errno = save_errno;
> return -1;
> }
> + free((void*)sha1_lf);
It looks like you leak sha1_lf in the error code path here.
It's a shame that we must allocate at all, when we are really just
passing through to a buffer. Lockfiles have a "FILE *" pointer these
days. Could we just allow:
lockfile_printf(lock->lk, "%s\n", sha1_to_hex(sha1));
or similar?
-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
