From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] git tag --contains : avoid stack overflow Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:55:33 -0400 Message-ID: <20140423205533.GA20582@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20140416141519.GA9684@camelia.ucw.cz> <20140416154653.GB4691@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140417213238.GA14792@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140417215817.GA822@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140423075325.GA7268@camelia.ucw.cz> <20140423191628.GA20596@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Stepan Kasal , Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org, Jean-Jacques Lafay To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 23 22:55:50 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Wd4Cr-0005ui-35 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 22:55:49 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422654AbaDWUzh (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:55:37 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:37054 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1422633AbaDWUzf (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:55:35 -0400 Received: (qmail 31354 invoked by uid 102); 23 Apr 2014 20:55:35 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:55:35 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:55:33 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 01:48:05PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I don't think so. The point is that we _must_ use bash here, not any > > POSIX shell. > > Sorry, but I do not understand. Isn't what you want "any POSIX > shell with 'ulimit -s 64' supported"? Sure, that would be fine, but the original patch which started this thread claimed that bash was required. I had assumed that to be true, but it seems like it's not: > $ dash -c 'ulimit -s && ulimit -s 64 && ulimit -s' > 8192 > 64 If we are just using the same shell we are already running, then why invoke it by name in the first place? IOW, why not: run_with_limited_stack () { (ulimit -s 64 && "$@") } -Peff