Re: [PATCH 3/4] unpack-trees: plug a memory leak

> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Before overwriting the destination index, first let's discard it's
>> contents.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  unpack-trees.c | 4 +++-
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/unpack-trees.c b/unpack-trees.c
>> index ede4299..eff2944 100644
>> --- a/unpack-trees.c
>> +++ b/unpack-trees.c
>> @@ -1146,8 +1146,10 @@ int unpack_trees(unsigned len, struct tree_desc *t, struct unpack_trees_options
>>
>>       o->src_index = NULL;
>>       ret = check_updates(o) ? (-2) : 0;
>> -     if (o->dst_index)
>> +     if (o->dst_index) {
>> +             discard_index(o->dst_index);
>>               *o->dst_index = o->result;
>> +     }
>
> I seem to recall that many callers set src_index and dst_index to
> the same istate, and expect that the original istate pointed by the
> src_index to remain usable.  Is it safe to discard it like this at
> this point?