Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] plugging some list-objects-filter leaks

From: Derrick Stolee <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2022 10:20:37 -0400

On 9/8/2022 12:52 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> The test I sent earlier in [1] fails the linux-leaks CI job, not because
> it introduces new leaks, but just because it runs existing leaks in a
> test marked as passing-leaks.
> 
> Of course we can drop the passing flag, but I figured it would probably
> be an easy fix. Famous last words. It turned into quite a rabbit hole of
> actual leaks (albeit small and bounded per process) and some
> questionable memory ownership semantics.

Reading the patches, you make good arguments about the various trade-
offs in these sticky places. I agree with you in all cases, mostly
because the alternatives would not be any better unless we did a _lot_
of work to rewrite a lot more code than these patches. Even then, the
benefit is unclear.

> Here's the series I came up with. I'm cc-ing Stolee as the last person
> unfortunate enough to have touched this area. :)

Lucky me!

These patches look good. Thanks!

-Stolee