From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
To: peff@peff.net, git@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Subject: [PATCH] revision.c: Correctly dereference interesting_cache
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:01:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1434740483-31730-1-git-send-email-sbeller@google.com> (raw)
This was introduced at b6e8a3b5 (2015-04-17, limit_list: avoid
quadratic behavior from still_interesting), which
also introduced the check a few lines before, which already dereferences
`interesting_cache`. So at this point `interesting_cache` is guaranteed to
be not NULL. The code is called referencing the address of a local
variable, so `interesting_cache` can actually never be NULL and trigger a
segmentation fault by dereferencing it a few lines before this.
I think the right thing is to check for `*interesting_cache` as that
can become NULL actually.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
---
Hi Jeff,
I found this possible defect via coverity id 1295352.
As I have had limited exposure to revision.c code until now,
the commit message may or may not be bogus.
Thanks,
Stefan
revision.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c
index 3ff8723..d1f0f07 100644
--- a/revision.c
+++ b/revision.c
@@ -347,35 +347,35 @@ static struct commit *handle_commit(struct rev_info *revs,
static int everybody_uninteresting(struct commit_list *orig,
struct commit **interesting_cache)
{
struct commit_list *list = orig;
if (*interesting_cache) {
struct commit *commit = *interesting_cache;
if (!(commit->object.flags & UNINTERESTING))
return 0;
}
while (list) {
struct commit *commit = list->item;
list = list->next;
if (commit->object.flags & UNINTERESTING)
continue;
- if (interesting_cache)
+ if (*interesting_cache)
*interesting_cache = commit;
return 0;
}
return 1;
}
/*
* A definition of "relevant" commit that we can use to simplify limited graphs
* by eliminating side branches.
*
* A "relevant" commit is one that is !UNINTERESTING (ie we are including it
* in our list), or that is a specified BOTTOM commit. Then after computing
* a limited list, during processing we can generally ignore boundary merges
* coming from outside the graph, (ie from irrelevant parents), and treat
* those merges as if they were single-parent. TREESAME is defined to consider
* only relevant parents, if any. If we are TREESAME to our on-graph parents,
* we don't care if we were !TREESAME to non-graph parents.
--
2.4.1.345.gab207b6.dirty
next reply other threads:[~2015-06-19 19:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-19 19:01 Stefan Beller [this message]
2015-06-19 20:49 ` [PATCH] revision.c: Correctly dereference interesting_cache Jeff King
2015-06-19 21:00 ` Jonathan Nieder
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1434740483-31730-1-git-send-email-sbeller@google.com \
--to=sbeller@google.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).