Re: [PATCH 3/3] submodule--helper: plug mem leak in print_default_remote

From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Date: May 31, 2018, 18:55 UTC
Message-ID: <CAGZ79kZcjojZDoyhZovQmBLxUcMgECih4iUAYYFw4o_EeB3m2g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1805311407140.82@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 5:07 AM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

> Hi Stefan,
>
> On Wed, 30 May 2018, Stefan Beller wrote:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
>> ---
>>  builtin/submodule--helper.c | 1 +
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/builtin/submodule--helper.c b/builtin/submodule--helper.c
>> index 7c3cd9dbeba..96024fee1b1 100644
>> --- a/builtin/submodule--helper.c
>> +++ b/builtin/submodule--helper.c
>> @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ static int print_default_remote(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>>       if (remote)
>>               printf("%s\n", remote);
>>
>> +     free(remote);
>
> Makes sense.
>
> Out of curiosity (and because a cover letter is missing): how did you
> stumble over these? Coverity?

Yes I found them on coverity as I wanted to find out how bad their false positives are these days. So I looked at the most recent findings.

I somehow imagined that we could redefine the _INIT macros which usually lead to false positives (just alloc&UNLEAK memory instead of pointing them all at the same memory for _INIT), but that experiment did not work out.

Thanks, Stefan