From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] git-wrapper to run-commands codepath regression Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:43:37 -0400 Message-ID: <20110418214337.GB25104@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <7v8vv78eld.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20110418211102.GA13566@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110418211849.GB13566@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vvcyb6xww.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Jonathan Nieder , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Apr 18 23:44:00 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QBwEh-0000Vd-TT for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:44:00 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752833Ab1DRVnm (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:43:42 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:55754 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752505Ab1DRVnj (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:43:39 -0400 Received: (qmail 4217 invoked by uid 107); 18 Apr 2011 21:44:32 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:44:32 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:43:37 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vvcyb6xww.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 02:40:31PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > And here's the fix. > > I was tempted to suggest the change in your patch. > > With ebec842 (run-command: prettify -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE workaround, > 2011-03-16) reverted, I still don't get complaints from -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE > for run-command.c (but I do get "ignoring return value of 'fwrite' from > many places). Perhaps the kinds of checks done by versions of gcc you, > Jonathan and I use are different. I don't use _FORTIFY_SOURCE at all, so I have no clue. I just saw that the code in ebec842 is obviously wrong, and the fix looked equally obvious. > I'd rather revert it for now; I don't want to see patch ping-pong at this > late in the pre-release cycle. That's your call, but the fix seems dead simple to me. _FORTIFY_SOURCE likes the conditional, according to Jonathan's patch. We don't remove the conditional, just the wrong "non-zero is an error" assumption. So I wouldn't expect any ping-pong on it, but then again, it looked like a pretty innocuous patch in the first place, and held a pretty nasty and surprising bug. :) -Peff