Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] Revert "pack-objects: lazily set up "struct rev_info", don't leak"

> Am 28.11.2022 um 13:24 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 28 2022, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>
>> René:
>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 28 2022, René Scharfe wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 28.11.2022 um 11:03 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
>>>>> René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This reverts commit 5cb28270a1ff94a0a23e67b479bbbec3bc993518.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5cb28270a1 (pack-objects: lazily set up "struct rev_info", don't leak,
>>>>>> 2022-03-28) avoided leaking rev_info allocations in many cases by
>>>>>> calling repo_init_revisions() only when the .filter member was actually
>>>>>> needed, but then still leaking it.  That was fixed later by 2108fe4a19
>>>>>> (revisions API users: add straightforward release_revisions(),
>>>>>> 2022-04-13), making the reverted commit unnecessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmph, with this merged, 'seen' breaks linux-leaks job in a strange
>>>>> way.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/git/git/actions/runs/3563546608/jobs/5986458300#step:5:3917
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anybody want to help looking into it?
>>>
>>> [I see we crossed E-Mails]:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/git/221128.868rjvmi3l.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com/
>>>
>>>> The patch exposes that release_revisions() leaks the diffopt allocations
>>>> as we're yet to address the TODO added by 54c8a7c379 (revisions API: add
>>>> a TODO for diff_free(&revs->diffopt), 2022-04-14).
>>>
>>> That's correct, and we have that leak in various places in our codebase,
>>> but per the above side-thread I think this is primarily exposing that
>>> we're setting up the "struct rev_info" with your change when we don't
>>> need to. Why can't we just skip it?
>>>
>>> Yeah, if we do set it up we'll run into an outstanding leak, and that
>>> should also be fixed (I have some local patches...), but the other cases
>>> I know of where we'll leak that data is where we're actually using the
>>> "struct rev_info".
>>>
>>> I haven't tried tearing your change apart to poke at it myself, and
>>> maybe there's some really good reason for why you can't separate getting
>>> rid of the J.5.7 dependency and removing the lazy-init.
>>>
>>>> The patch below plugs it locally.
>>>>
>>>> --- >8 ---
>>>> Subject: [PATCH 4/3] fixup! revision: free diffopt in release_revisions()
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
>>>> ---
>>>>  builtin/pack-objects.c | 1 +
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/builtin/pack-objects.c b/builtin/pack-objects.c
>>>> index 3e74fbb0cd..a47a3f0fba 100644
>>>> --- a/builtin/pack-objects.c
>>>> +++ b/builtin/pack-objects.c
>>>> @@ -4462,6 +4462,7 @@ int cmd_pack_objects(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>>>>  	} else {
>>>>  		get_object_list(&revs, rp.nr, rp.v);
>>>>  	}
>>>> +	diff_free(&revs.diffopt);
>>>>  	release_revisions(&revs);
>>>>  	cleanup_preferred_base();
>>>>  	if (include_tag && nr_result)
>>>
>>> So, the main motivation for the change was paranoia that a compiler or
>>> platform might show up without J.5.7 support and that would bite us, but
>>> we're now adding a double-free-in-waiting?
>>>
>>> I think we're both a bit paranoid, but clearly have different
>>> paranoia-priorities :)
>>>
>>> If we do end up with some hack like this instead of fixing the
>>> underlying problem I'd much prefer that such a hack just be an UNLEAK()
>>> here.
>>>
>>> I.e. we have a destructor for "revs.*" already, let's not bypass it and
>>> start freeing things from under it, which will result in a double-free
>>> if we forget this callsite once the TODO in 54c8a7c379 is addressed.
>>>
>>> As you'd see if you made release_revisions() simply call
>>> diff_free(&revs.diffopt) doing so would reveal some really gnarly edge
>>> cases.
>>>
>>> I haven't dug into this one, but offhand I'm not confident in saying
>>> that this isn't exposing us to some aspect of that gnarlyness (maybe
>>> not, it's been a while since I looked).
>>>
>>> (IIRC some of the most gnarly edge cases will only show up as CI
>>> failures on Windows, to do with the ordering of when we'll fclose()
>>> files hanging off that "diffopt").
>>
>> This squashed into 3/3 seems to me to be a proper fix to a change that
>> wants to refactor the code for non-J.5.7 compatibility. I.e. this just
>> does the data<->fp casting part of the change, without refactoring the
>> "lazy init".
>
> That works, but lazy code is more complicated and there is no benefit
> here -- eager allocations are not noticably slow or big.  Laziness
> hides leaks in corners, i.e. requiring invocations with uncommon
> options to trigger them.

>> But I think you should check this a bit more carefully. Your 3/3 says
>> that your change "mak[es] the reverted commit unnecessary"
>
> No, it says that _your_ change 2108fe4a19 (revisions API users: add
> straightforward release_revisions(), 2022-04-13) made it unnecessary.

>> , but as I
>> noted if you'd run the command that commit shows, you'd have seen you're
>> re-introducing the leak it fixed. So I wonder what else has been missed
>> here.
>
> 5cb28270a1 (pack-objects: lazily set up "struct rev_info", don't leak,
> 2022-03-28) did not plug the leak.  It only moved it to the corner that
> handles the --filter option.

>> I vaguely recall that one reason I ended up with that J.5.7 dependency
>> was because there was an objection to mocking up the "struct option" as
>> I'm doing here. I.e. here we assume that the
>> opt_parse_list_objects_filter() is only ever going to care about the
>> "value" member.
>
> It's probably fine, but unnecessarily complicated compared to calling
> repo_init_revisions() eagerly.