Re: [PATCH] reftable: fix unlikely leak on API error

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2026 at 05:03:14AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:

> Noticed by Coverity as a "new" problem, though it has been there for
> over a year.  Presumably the nearby changes from 44f46f2be5 (reftable:
> split up write options, 2026-06-25) confused it. There's a backlog of
> hundreds of Coverity problems, most of which are garbage, so I tend to
> only look at the ones it marks as new.

This does conflict textually with 44f46f2be5, which adds a new line
nearby. Resolving like:

diff --cc reftable/writer.c
index f850e9d599,1bd4aa388b..d969a6a021
--- a/reftable/writer.c
+++ b/reftable/writer.c
@@@ -161,9 -158,10 +157,13 @@@ int reftable_writer_new(struct reftable
  	if (opts.block_size >= (1 << 24))
  		return REFTABLE_API_ERROR;
  
 +	if (!hash_id)
 +		hash_id = REFTABLE_HASH_SHA1;
 +
+ 	wp = reftable_calloc(1, sizeof(*wp));
+ 	if (!wp)
+ 		return REFTABLE_OUT_OF_MEMORY_ERROR;
+ 
  	reftable_buf_init(&wp->block_writer_data.last_key);
  	reftable_buf_init(&wp->last_key);
  	reftable_buf_init(&wp->scratch);

makes sense to me, as it keeps the hash_id setting with the "opts"
setup.

-Peff