Re: [PATCH] fmt-merge-msg: avoid leaking strbuf in shortlog()

> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:37:08AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
>>> The two modes (dup/nodup) make string_list code tricky.  Not sure
>>> how far we'd get with something simpler (e.g. an array of char pointers),
>>> but having the caller do all string allocations would make the code
>>> easier to analyze.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> It probably would have been more sensible if the API did not have
>> two modes (instead, have the caller pass whatever string to be
>> stored, *and* make the caller responsible for freeing them *if* it
>> passed an allocated string).
> 
> I'd actually argue the other way: the simplest interface is one where
> the string list owns all of its pointers. That keeps the
> ownership/lifetime issues clear, and it's one less step for the caller
> to have to remember to do at the end (they do have to clear() the list,
> but they must do that anyway to free the array of items).
> 
> It does mean that some callers may have to remember to free a temporary
> buffer right after adding its contents to the list. But that's a lesser
> evil, I think, since the memory ownership issues are all clearly
> resolved at the time of add.
> 
> The big cost is just extra copies/allocations.

>> For the push_refs_with_push() patch you sent, another possible fix
>> would be to make cas_options a nodup kind so that the result of
>> strbuf_detach() does not get an extra strdup to be lost when placed
>> in cas_options.  With the current string-list API that would not
>> quite work, because freeing done in _release() is tied to the
>> "dup/nodup" ness of the string list.  I think there even is a
>> codepath that initializes a string_list as nodup kind, stuffs string
>> in it giving the ownership, and then flips it into dup kind just
>> before calling _release() only to have it free the strings, or
>> something silly/ugly like that.
> 
> Yes, the first grep hit for NODUP is bisect_clean_state(), which does
> this. I think it would be more clear if we could do:
> 
> diff --git a/bisect.c b/bisect.c
> index 0fca17c02b..7c59408a13 100644
> --- a/bisect.c
> +++ b/bisect.c
> @@ -1060,8 +1060,7 @@ static int mark_for_removal(const char *refname, const struct object_id *oid,
>   			    int flag, void *cb_data)
>   {
>   	struct string_list *refs = cb_data;
> -	char *ref = xstrfmt("refs/bisect%s", refname);
> -	string_list_append(refs, ref);
> +	string_list_appendf(refs, "refs/bisect%s", refname);
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   
> @@ -1070,11 +1069,10 @@ int bisect_clean_state(void)
>   	int result = 0;
>   
>   	/* There may be some refs packed during bisection */
> -	struct string_list refs_for_removal = STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP;
> +	struct string_list refs_for_removal = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
>   	for_each_ref_in("refs/bisect", mark_for_removal, (void *) &refs_for_removal);
>   	string_list_append(&refs_for_removal, xstrdup("BISECT_HEAD"));

>   	result = delete_refs("bisect: remove", &refs_for_removal, REF_NO_DEREF);
> -	refs_for_removal.strdup_strings = 1;
>   	string_list_clear(&refs_for_removal, 0);
>   	unlink_or_warn(git_path_bisect_expected_rev());
>   	unlink_or_warn(git_path_bisect_ancestors_ok());
> 
> 
> Having a "format into a string" wrapper doesn't cover _every_ string you
> might want to add to a list, but my experience with argv_array_pushf
> leads me to believe that it covers quite a lot of cases.