Jeff King <> writes:

> On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 05:58:12PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>> When rolling back the lockfile, call close_lock_file() so that the
>> lock_file's fd field gets set back to -1.  This could help prevent
>> confusion in the face of hypothetical future programming errors.
> This also solves a race. We could be in the middle of rollback_lock_file
> when we get a signal, and double-close. It's probably not a big deal,
> though, since nobody could have opened a new descriptor in the interim
> that got the same number (so the second close will just fail silently).
> Still, this seems like a definite improvement.

This is probably related to my comments on 2/22, but is "fd" the
only thing that has a non-zero safe value?  Perhaps lock_file_init()
that clears the structure fields to 0/NULL and fd to -1, and a
convenience function lock_file_alloc() that does xmalloc() and then
calls lock_file_init() may help us a bit when the lockfile structure
is reused?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to