Jeff King <p...@peff.net> 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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html