From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3894C1F8C8 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 17:28:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239489AbhIRR3y (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Sep 2021 13:29:54 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55332 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236861AbhIRR3x (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Sep 2021 13:29:53 -0400 Received: from mail-vs1-xe2c.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD762C061574 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 10:28:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vs1-xe2c.google.com with SMTP id p24so12603153vsg.0 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 10:28:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Gha3cnmIsDAca5XKLKjSMO/qBRXV88P+i5GiitrGPLA=; b=JZ4KgrPtKfjP9G6eToAyH9LbqH7t6rUrik1aPU3pZ0h3FuD52eW/j/WL5iSnz5zEUK +UKdx008TTy0mJptRXpnMPt2IgNk5h5nWVjBGpQpTrEq6lHQW6DT8GE0pDEGBy7+Dn0H bK1OPR3mgIiYxZmTPdCmp3GZ3Ppugeu8+dp9GPdwfi6OSGmi6HBNTqG3dar2VgCoKI1N 6aZpxuNoueNs/CysobVzufvkRRyjvjabc/pHh/KkrUcU/DoB99fOtv5OZ7Y0IwxY1Cnp qhSbfHAD7TjTSTLG5VGcm2mTe2tciNx345wH6KdVtwf1Pl3vcp7Euxkyp8jiKTstPxy0 vGaA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Gha3cnmIsDAca5XKLKjSMO/qBRXV88P+i5GiitrGPLA=; b=VumxjUrcoqFfLRlXE0M2LPujlqE4BRRTgEuO2FPNbvsjTDvk5cHdaxntcGKqIqHgBH l+CoxPH6nigQEPR7mqeC6KA0J/6MpUiDpyu5deU+xawwZ2LgpY/l9Ptj3SNdBBcZKyts 307uma/X4o8ncvFV0bw8WmftKFdUIUB0YOQlyjTWYB/5xHmQ8PFofXOY/QkzL+UJJTqO j80HWrNETi96RI0ZkttFf7AbUHRIyurZp45GHkFjq/UDryCqBiWEISPvOxxGoJKbxSlN 4bBKwWYiv37TDvFjC3+aXMAvtM8x/dFSSnwnXt2/Ez69Zj/Bq+PnDxzmlY1GE/Lh8Xhh HdZw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532IVoQzAETX4egQWssXCqi5LP98qkbx5VJLjCAzKn2XbG6E3UzU YiGQuWUmBsx5K5lnc8y6h6om4pXhbl3rXTUrxv7G+GqCZzo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxlcF1Bm83sITDd+5UTUqc036I2Vm7PARah44Cobl0i6htQc/OdQ/lR6UOZ6Rsy6wcgdDU/FnYR1Hqt5tJRZ2g= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:1d4:: with SMTP id s20mr12320888vsq.3.1631986108703; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 10:28:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Carlo Arenas Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2021 10:28:17 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Squash leaks in t0000 To: Andrzej Hunt via GitGitGadget Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Andrzej Hunt Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 6:49 AM Andrzej Hunt via GitGitGadget wrote: > Carlo points out that t0000 currently doesn't pass with leak-checking > enabled in: > https://public-inbox.org/git/CAPUEsphMUNYRACmK-nksotP1RrMn09mNGFdEHLLuNEW= H4AcU7Q@mail.gmail.com/T/#m7e40220195d98aee4be7e8593d30094b88a6ee71 Did you figure out why it doesn't trigger on maint even if the code seems to be mostly the same? At least seems to trigger consistently in master, next and seen. > Here's a series that I've sat on for a while, which adds some UNLEAK's to > "fix" this situation - see the individual patches for a justification of = why > an UNLEAK seems appropriate. While I see that UNLEAK in this specific case, might be an ok "fix", I have to admit that not finding a repo_clear_revisions() (or equivalent function) that could be used to clear revs seems like a problem worth fixing as well for the future. Will reply with my WIP so we can see if it could work either as an alternative to this, or at least lay some foundations so that a long running process that needs to use a `struct revision` or some of this logic can in the future without having to deal with leaks. Thanks and "Reviewed-by: Carlo Marcelo Arenas Bel=C3=B3n " if needed. Carlo