From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 01:27:11 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] branch: let '--edit-description' default to rebased branch during rebase
Message-ID: <CAPig+cRCMXjjPHc2O8fLmaSm9m-ZO3qR2BoZwG3s5dLHNbiFFQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ+F1CKW3NACgPdPbmAzYGVwR4iO3r+LCNq+g5st0gcz4X+fzA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 9:55 AM Marc-André Lureau
<marcandre.lureau@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 5:28 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 7:36 AM <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > +                               if (wt_status_check_rebase(NULL, &state)) {
> > > +                                       branch_name = state.branch;
> > > +                               }

Taking a deeper look at the code, I'm wondering it would make more
sense to call wt_status_get_state(), which handles 'rebase' and
'bisect'. Is there a reason that you limited this check to only
'rebase'?

> > >                 if (edit_branch_description(branch_name))
> > >                         return 1;
> > > +
> > > +               free(branch_name);
> >
> > That `return 1` just above this free() is leaking 'branch_name', isn't it?
>
> right, let's fix that too

Looking at the code itself (rather than consulting only the patch), I
see that there are a couple more early returns leaking 'branch_name',
so they need to be handled, as well.