From: "ノウラ | Flare" <nouraellm@gmail•com>
To: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox•com>,
"ノウラ | Flare via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail•com>
Cc: git@vger•kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] alloc: fix dangling pointer in alloc_state cleanup
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 15:25:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c8137063-c928-45a1-aae5-9de2b35e5150@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqh5xibqvu.fsf@gitster.g>
The point of the check was to avoid subtle crashes
aligning with defensive programming requirements.
If you lean more towards strict contract enforcement
Just say the word.
On 04/09/2025 09:47, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "ノウラ | Flare via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail•com> writes:
>
>> +void alloc_state_free_and_null(struct alloc_state **s_)
>> {
>> + struct alloc_state *s;
>> +
>> + if (!s_ || !*s_) return;
> I still do not see the point of this check. If the caller passes a
> NULL pointer, when they are expected to pass the address of a
> pointer variable so that the struct the pointer points at is cleared
> and freed, and the pointer variable is NULLed, it is called a
> programmer error and they deserve a segfault. Why would it be
> better to sweep such an error under the rug by returning without
> anything? It would delay discovery of such a bug, but for what
> gain?
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-04 13:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-26 19:57 [PATCH] reset slab_alloc and state fields in clear_alloc_state() ノウラ | Flare via GitGitGadget
2025-08-27 2:07 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-08-27 23:28 ` [PATCH v2] alloc: fix dangling pointer in alloc_state cleanup ノウラ | Flare via GitGitGadget
2025-08-28 19:29 ` Torsten Bögershausen
2025-08-28 19:47 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-08-28 20:01 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-08-29 13:00 ` [PATCH v3] " ノウラ | Flare via GitGitGadget
2025-09-03 11:18 ` Jeff King
2025-09-03 21:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-09-03 23:17 ` [PATCH v4] " ノウラ | Flare via GitGitGadget
2025-09-04 7:47 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-09-04 13:25 ` ノウラ | Flare [this message]
2025-09-04 16:43 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-09-04 17:44 ` [PATCH v5] " ノウラ | Flare via GitGitGadget
2025-09-04 20:25 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-09-04 20:49 ` Jeff King
2025-09-04 22:26 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-09-05 0:02 ` ノウラ | Flare
2025-09-05 13:23 ` Jeff King
2025-09-05 17:27 ` ノウラ | Flare
2025-09-05 0:07 ` ノウラ | Flare
2025-09-05 0:25 ` ノウラ | Flare
2025-09-05 1:03 ` ノウラ | Flare
2025-09-05 14:39 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-09-05 17:47 ` ノウラ | Flare
2025-09-05 13:15 ` Jeff King
2025-09-05 18:51 ` [PATCH v6] " ノウラ | Flare via GitGitGadget
2025-09-05 19:37 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=c8137063-c928-45a1-aae5-9de2b35e5150@gmail.com \
--to=nouraellm@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=git@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=gitgitgadget@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=gitster@pobox$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox