From: lilinchao@oschina.cn Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 07:50:08 GMT Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] maintenance: fix two memory leaks Message-ID: <5abbc3beb16411eba07a0024e87935e7@oschina.cn> In-Reply-To: <0c04f7c2b15f11eb82baa4badb2c2b1178978@pobox.com> >"lilinchao@oschina.cn" writes: > >>>@@ -1999,6 +2000,7 @@ static int update_background_schedule(int enable) >>> die("unknown background scheduler: %s", scheduler); >>> >>> rollback_lock_file(&lk); >>>+ free(lock_path); >> Based on your change, I think when "hold_lock_file_for_update()<0", we should also free local_path >> Thanks > >Meaning something like this? > > > builtin/gc.c | 9 +++++++-- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >diff --git c/builtin/gc.c w/builtin/gc.c >index 98a803196b..50565c37c7 100644 >--- c/builtin/gc.c >+++ w/builtin/gc.c >@@ -1971,8 +1971,10 @@ static int update_background_schedule(int enable) > cmd = sep + 1; > } > >- if (hold_lock_file_for_update(&lk, lock_path, LOCK_NO_DEREF) < 0) >- return error(_("another process is scheduling background maintenance")); >+ if (hold_lock_file_for_update(&lk, lock_path, LOCK_NO_DEREF) < 0) { >+ result = error(_("another process is scheduling background maintenance")); >+ goto cleanup; >+ } > > if (!strcmp(scheduler, "launchctl")) > result = launchctl_update_schedule(enable, get_lock_file_fd(&lk), cmd); >@@ -1984,6 +1986,9 @@ static int update_background_schedule(int enable) > die("unknown background scheduler: %s", scheduler); > > rollback_lock_file(&lk); >+ >+cleanup: >+ free(lock_path); > free(testing); > return result; > } Yes, it's almost like this, and your is better than I thought. I just referred to this function(L1266-L1321): static int maintenance_run_tasks(struct maintenance_run_opts *opts) {         ... if (hold_lock_file_for_update(&lk, lock_path, LOCK_NO_DEREF) < 0) {                 ... free(lock_path); return 0; } free(lock_path);         ...         ... rollback_lock_file(&lk); return result; } and thought we should also apply it to "update_background_schedule()".