Re: [PATCH 06/34] clone: release strbuf after use in remove_junk()
- Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:38:27 -0400
- From: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/34] clone: release strbuf after use in remove_junk()
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 12:37:06PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:
> > And in fact, being called from a signal handler means we should
> > generally avoid touching malloc or free (which could be holding locks).
> > That would mean preferring a leak to strbuf_release(). Of course that is
> > the tip of the iceberg. We call strbuf_addstr() here, and
> > remove_dir_recursively() will grow our buffer.
> And we call opendir(3), readdir(3), and closedir(3), which are also not
> listed as async-safe functions by POSIX .
Good point. I don't know how dangerous those are in the real-world
(i.e., is POSIX leaving an out for some implementations, or are they
really unsafe on common platforms like Linux).
> > So I actually wonder if junk_git_dir and junk_work_tree should be
> > pre-sized strbufs themselves. And that makes the leak "go away" in the
> > eyes of leak-checkers because we hold onto the static strbufs until
> > program exit.
> We could start with a small buffer and expand it to match the path
> length of written files as we go.
Yes, but I didn't want to touch each code site that creates a file,
which is a lot more invasive. I expect expanding to 4096 (or PATH_MAX)
would be sufficient in practice.
I'd also note that the current code isn't _remotely_ async safe and
nobody's complained. So I'm perfectly happy doing nothing, too. I care
a bit more about the tempfile.c interface because it's invoked a lot
> Deletion without readdir(3) requires us to keep a list of all written
> files and directories, though. Perhaps in the form of an append-only
> log; the signal handler could then go through them in reverse order
> and remove them. Or is there a better way?
No, I think that's how you'd have to do it. The implementation isn't all
that bad, but hitting every file-creation would be invasive. I'd
almost rather bail to exec-ing "rm -rf $dir", but we probably can't do
_that_ in a signal-handler either. :)