On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 01:44:24PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: > > > In start_command(), unset "env" fields are initialized via "env_array". In > > finish_command(), the "env_array" is cleared, therefore the "env" field > > will point to free()d data. > > > > However, start_command() will set "env" to env_array.argv only if "env" > > was unset to begin with, and if it was already set, the caller will need > > the original value. Therefore, we need to be very careful only to reset > > "env" in finish_command() when it has been initialized in start_command(). > > Hmph. Does the same observation apply to cmd->argv that is > initialied to point to cmd->args.argv only when it is unset?
Yes, they behave exactly the same (I think Dscho just doesn't hit it in his patch because he assigns argv manually). I don't have a real problem with going in this direction as a safety measure, but I am not sure that it is safe to reuse a child_process after finish_command in general, without an intervening child_process_init. For instance, calling start_command will convert a "child_process.in" value of "-1" instead a pipe, and overwrite that "-1" with the descriptor of the pipe. A subsequent use of the same child_process struct will ask the second child to use that pipe (the write-half of the pipe, mind you) as its stdin, which is nonsensical. So I think you are much better off just using two child_process structs (or a single one and reinitializing in between calls). -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
