From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2018 22:37:38 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] commit-graph: clean up leaked memory during write
Message-ID: <20181002223738.GB5588@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kYtNnNPMv0=rB4ie=tOoYEPPZ=CmYFg4PG2_j96vjODeQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:59:28AM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:

> > Generally speaking, it
> > seems impossible to UNLEAK when dying, since we don't know what we have
> > allocated higher up in the call-stack.
> 
> I do not understand; I thought UNLEAK was specifically for the purpose of
> die() calls without imposing extra overhead; rereading 0e5bba53af
> (add UNLEAK annotation for reducing leak false positives, 2017-09-08)
> doesn't provide an example for prematurely die()ing, only for regular
> program exit.

I responded elsewhere, but as the author of UNLEAK, let me comment here:
it was intended only for program exit. That's why there are no such
examples. :)

If you're using it anywhere except the return from a cmd_* function, or
a static-local helper that's called from a cmd_*, you should probably
actually be freeing the memory.

-Peff