# [PATCH] update-cache --refresh cache entry leak 3 messages from 2005-04-16 to 2005-04-17. Participants: Junio C Hamano, Linus Torvalds. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/55 ## Junio C Hamano, 2005-04-16 22:51 Subject: [PATCH] update-cache --refresh cache entry leak Message-ID: <7v8y3i5o8t.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7v8y3i5o8t.fsf%40assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ``` When update-cache --refresh replaces an existing cache entry with a new one, it forgets to free the original. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano --- update-cache.c: 61d2b93a751f35ba24f479cd4fc151188916f02a --- update-cache.c +++ update-cache.c 2005-04-16 15:49:03.000000000 -0700 @@ -203,6 +203,8 @@ printf("%s: needs update\n", ce->name); continue; } + if (new != ce) + free(ce); active_cache[i] = new; } } ``` ## Linus Torvalds, 2005-04-17 03:35 Subject: Re: [PATCH] update-cache --refresh cache entry leak Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504162033250.7211%40ppc970.osdl.org In-Reply-To: <7v8y3i5o8t.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> ``` On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > When update-cache --refresh replaces an existing cache entry > with a new one, it forgets to free the original. I've seen this patch now three times, and it's been wrong every single time. Maybe we should add a comment? That active-cache entry you free()'d was not necessarily allocated with malloc(). Most cache-entries are just mmap'ed directly from the index file. Leaking is ok. We cannot leak too much. Linus ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2005-04-17 04:44 Subject: Re: [PATCH] update-cache --refresh cache entry leak Message-ID: <7vbr8e2erl.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7vbr8e2erl.fsf%40assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net In-Reply-To: ``` >>>>> "LT" == Linus Torvalds writes: LT> I've seen this patch now three times, and it's been wrong every single LT> time. Maybe we should add a comment? I found out the previous two just after I sent it out. Sorry about that. ```