Re: [PATCH v5 17/27] revisions API: have release_revisions() release "mailmap"
- From
- Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
- Date
- Apr 3, 2022, 09:33 UTC
- Message-ID
- <5044b964-0605-356c-3e03-1aad8cbbe619@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <patch-v5-17.27-ca659940ee5-20220402T102002Z-avarab@gmail.com>
Hi Ævar
On 02/04/2022 11:49, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
Show 22 quoted lines
> Extend the the release_revisions() function so that it frees the > "mailmap" in the "struct rev_info". > > The log family of functions now calls the clear_mailmap() function > added in fa8afd18e5a (revisions API: provide and use a > release_revisions(), 2021-09-19), allowing us to whitelist some tests > with "TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true". > > Unfortunately having a pointer to a mailmap in "struct rev_info" > instead of an embedded member that we "own" get a bit messy, as can be > seen in the change to builtin/commit.c. > > When we free() this data we won't be able to tell apart a pointer to a > "mailmap" on the heap from one on the stack. As seen in > ea57bc0d41b (log: add --use-mailmap option, 2013-01-05) the "log" > family allocates it on the heap, but in the find_author_by_nickname() > code added in ea16794e430 (commit: search author pattern against > mailmap, 2013-08-23) we allocated it on the stack instead. > > Ideally we'd simply change that member to a "struct string_list > mailmap" and never free() the "mailmap" itself, but that would be a > much larger change to the revisions API.
I agree it makes sense to leave that for now
Show 44 quoted lines
> We have code that needs to hand an existing "mailmap" to a "struct > rev_info", while we could change all of that, let's not go there > now. > > The complexity isn't in the ownership of the "mailmap" per-se, but > that various things assume a "rev_info.mailmap == NULL" means "doesn't > want mailmap", if we changed that to an init'd "struct string_list > we'd need to carefully refactor things to change those assumptions. > > Let's instead always free() it, and simply declare that if you add > such a "mailmap" it must be allocated on the heap. Any modern libc > will correctly panic if we free() a stack variable, so this should be > safe going forward. > > Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> > --- > builtin/commit.c | 5 ++--- > revision.c | 9 +++++++++ > t/t0056-git-C.sh | 1 + > t/t3302-notes-index-expensive.sh | 1 + > t/t4055-diff-context.sh | 1 + > t/t4066-diff-emit-delay.sh | 1 + > t/t7008-filter-branch-null-sha1.sh | 1 + > 7 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/builtin/commit.c b/builtin/commit.c > index c7eda9bbb72..cd6cebcf8c8 100644 > --- a/builtin/commit.c > +++ b/builtin/commit.c > @@ -1100,7 +1100,6 @@ static const char *find_author_by_nickname(const char *name) > struct rev_info revs; > struct commit *commit; > struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT; > - struct string_list mailmap = STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP; > const char *av[20]; > int ac = 0; > > @@ -1111,7 +1110,8 @@ static const char *find_author_by_nickname(const char *name) > av[++ac] = buf.buf; > av[++ac] = NULL; > setup_revisions(ac, av, &revs, NULL); > - revs.mailmap = &mailmap; > + revs.mailmap = xmalloc(sizeof(struct string_list)); > + string_list_init_nodup(revs.mailmap);
This is a common pattern in one of the previous patches, is it worth adding helpers to allocate and initialize a struct string_list? Maybe string_list_new_nodup() and string_list_new_dup().
Show 26 quoted lines
> read_mailmap(revs.mailmap);
>
> if (prepare_revision_walk(&revs))
> @@ -1122,7 +1122,6 @@ static const char *find_author_by_nickname(const char *name)
> ctx.date_mode.type = DATE_NORMAL;
> strbuf_release(&buf);
> format_commit_message(commit, "%aN <%aE>", &buf, &ctx);
> - clear_mailmap(&mailmap);
> release_revisions(&revs);
> return strbuf_detach(&buf, NULL);
> }
> diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c
> index 553f7de8250..622f0faecc4 100644
> --- a/revision.c
> +++ b/revision.c
> @@ -2926,10 +2926,19 @@ int setup_revisions(int argc, const char **argv, struct rev_info *revs, struct s
> return left;
> }
>
> +static void release_revisions_mailmap(struct string_list *mailmap)
> +{
> + if (!mailmap)
> + return;
> + clear_mailmap(mailmap);
> + free(mailmap);
> +}It's not a big issue but if there are no other users of this then it could just go inside release_revisions, my impression is that this series builds a collection of very small functions whose only caller is release_revisions()
Best Wishes
Phillip