From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30E3913A3EE for ; Mon, 27 May 2024 17:39:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716831550; cv=none; b=bYA3xIHwFSCwF4JxIooxrcSnRfdUwEYXw6IiHoAuOw3dcn5F0hptbRkyBxbraWt2IUq0CHq6Fw40k4HqHlv4TpdmnJkb0l9mMC7zNJeYbIiPsQTxKP7wTGJ+/0vKB2YwDaQJ1aGwX487JTSArrl3ulrnC3jBGStPxHaIygqvTik= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716831550; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UT4xlBJZEK4uVStgk1bo3yJ/Hg6ocL+MFi3FTSNC2IE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=t7pTmosjRrV8A/fnDMAnvLyinGKL/8l7fzIFsSwH8cDNJMaGwhfmuhS3+bPM7iYsmrvdNoChp2Re6XmrlCL4fK5xiKkH+kWHIwxcZGsi2o52MImuHdeYmuUBX8h4nnvgSAKkkE3szKGKw/KWMJ8JsRtLGDNrF+jjO07V9yClk7k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=xuPVi6SN; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="xuPVi6SN" Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD1E22398; Mon, 27 May 2024 13:39:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=UT4xlBJZEK4uVStgk1bo3yJ/Hg6ocL+MFi3FTS NC2IE=; b=xuPVi6SN+sXSd50TyjniDSOBFu0z2gA6WjUVhXOE3HrK4OQAFBkoH5 COVAD59uWYInEq6gpmKsXg/l4hl6iqUHlqMK0xBFJgyNooUZ/fPpmDAvsVOKvl8X hlTJ19xl/BH+nOSBoGbAiPDkWoLAw0EOgX/9+jeAWp2KLyDx5FF10= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E749222397; Mon, 27 May 2024 13:39:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.173.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4A7CD22396; Mon, 27 May 2024 13:39:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Eric Sunshine , Karthik Nayak Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/21] Various memory leak fixes In-Reply-To: (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Mon, 27 May 2024 08:44:39 +0200") References: Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 10:38:59 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 011AE236-1C50-11EF-A611-78DCEB2EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Patrick Steinhardt writes: > Indeed. The following diff fixes the leak: > > diff --git a/builtin/update-ref.c b/builtin/update-ref.c > index 7d2a419230..e54be9c429 100644 > --- a/builtin/update-ref.c > +++ b/builtin/update-ref.c > @@ -130,6 +130,8 @@ static char *parse_next_arg(const char **next) > > if (arg.len) > return strbuf_detach(&arg, NULL); > + > + strbuf_release(&arg); > return NULL; > } > > > Karthik is out of office this week, so you may want to add this as a > "SQUASH???" commit on top of his topic branch to make "seen" pass. Alright. Thanks. >> Also >> >> https://github.com/git/git/actions/runs/9231313414/job/25401102951 >> >> shows that t1460-refs-migrate fails on Windows. > > Hm, this one is curious. There are no leak logs at all, and the exit > code is 139. Might be SIGSEGV, indicating that something else is going > on here than a memory leak. Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I do not suspect this is about leaks (and the failing job on Windows is not about leaks).