Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@virtuozzo.com> writes: [...] > I agree that this is a strange function and its logic is weird. But I > don't know what the logic should be. My patch is still valid to just > fix obvious use-after-free and possible leak. It doesn't fix the > logic.
I sketched improved logic elsewhere in this thread, and I can turn that into a patch. I can either make it replace Vladimir's patch, or make it go on top. If the latter, we can apply just Vladimir's patch for 5.0, and punt mine to 5.1 Got a preference?
