From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] Fix XML parser leaks in http-push Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:36:36 -0800 Message-ID: <7v4peodfkb.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1197407997-22945-1-git-send-email-mh@glandium.org> <1197412253-927-1-git-send-email-mh@glandium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Hommey X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Dec 11 23:38:04 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1J2Djl-00032m-Pu for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:38:02 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755367AbXLKWg4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:36:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753587AbXLKWg4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:36:56 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:63583 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752782AbXLKWgy (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:36:54 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B8575DD0; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:36:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 337F15DCC; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:36:48 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <1197412253-927-1-git-send-email-mh@glandium.org> (Mike Hommey's message of "Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:30:53 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Mike Hommey writes: > XML_Parser were never freed. While at it, move the parser initialization to > right before it is needed. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Hommey > --- > > This one is the same, but against pu, where Junio fixed my strbuf patch in > a different way than I did. To be very honest, I wish the strbuf patch (that has potentially larger impact) did not take these obviously correct leakfix patches hostage. Will have to take a look but slowly (I'm at work now).