From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71AE4C433F5 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 20:43:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A87461152 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 20:43:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239377AbhJFUpr (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2021 16:45:47 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:40886 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S239515AbhJFUpn (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2021 16:45:43 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-x32d.google.com (mail-ot1-x32d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7362C061753 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 13:43:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot1-x32d.google.com with SMTP id u20-20020a9d7214000000b0054e170300adso4688711otj.13 for ; Wed, 06 Oct 2021 13:43:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :cc:references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ai61waABQCOWCFYw+Fg78GEjMMwuP7jkP1ppolz1fq8=; b=L+Vaya55j/aCmYJPzntKQQjTh2W79fN0d7tmylxLmUhJfd+NTXUbRczhXKXef3Vg7j cRKnc7macCHsnWC6LDbljGsS/Evu7covBwIGoO+gP3iclAxAyghQLu9zIeq4KHmSUMuq G6nk18q9zciri4Zhywe3ZkHFPR/LtqKLsMTMbRg2hqjeMTw9B3017iE+ZE35aEzDJnDi MqmqdQojgwp+hqL6XKIkuzfc0n2+M3L8qELXi6z0+Dwlk9Cng4/COAgrtVucGfRbb6MR sN9FgdUruRvsJsHgx2QqHUJk8sYGXKnXo7mk/amM1Ti0VpuI0zvsxBmeU3Y3zNEOaAiN hXLg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ai61waABQCOWCFYw+Fg78GEjMMwuP7jkP1ppolz1fq8=; b=fWPCoUy+pea9fpVRXtxIwtyL+TYiGmpvBu4UVqccIg3FbVNhJXHkYeTDOIMa71KZaT 75hwnSMtBJQPWG8l8q3vVFtUDB03tQVRBt7qM+NXqZyANVDD8jqsUTmHzlzjXImTy+vb G44TcPZQMmMZkS4USSV5rXyYt3HC4WuUnNvdRZ7bspDio/kHQSffkqOTd6y/0OS5gY3L crot97KdflWlcJceT3vOrttDvzZnW6ObKOkwFpns5LbS6MAqDpLxGL3clY2O6fUOXG9r FyDQ4Vh4WrynPGQBMMsEcy9jc7JiKcVjnoQcfF0CFLBDAckhT2hGMkBAVW0MlUNBdw/g 3PiQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533fcmwk2JmW+nqeQVcnkMwtuHH/KEUQrCpTkHi5c0uYeZW3D8Q8 DIasuScaCL800a9vnOYeo+o= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyjxRaojMO12yQRwkTLSRNTLmeSCc0PLxQBfdaf4KOq4RCZ6jpiLzUkXZu6UXIH7+G93GnMFA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1212:: with SMTP id r18mr337596otp.212.1633553028907; Wed, 06 Oct 2021 13:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2600:1700:e72:80a0:a5f2:2ad3:7396:8f96? ([2600:1700:e72:80a0:a5f2:2ad3:7396:8f96]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h18sm4369565otg.2.2021.10.06.13.43.47 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Oct 2021 13:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <7ef4f68c-8c32-86ea-f8a6-cd673ed281c7@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 16:43:45 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.1.2 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] sparse index: fix use-after-free bug in cache_tree_verify() Content-Language: en-US To: Junio C Hamano , Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Derrick Stolee , =?UTF-8?Q?Ren=c3=a9_Scharfe?= , Elijah Newren , Johannes Schindelin , Phillip Wood References: From: Derrick Stolee In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 10/6/2021 3:17 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget" writes: >> @@ -907,6 +917,9 @@ void cache_tree_verify(struct repository *r, struct index_state *istate) >> >> if (!istate->cache_tree) >> return; >> - verify_one(r, istate, istate->cache_tree, &path); >> + if (verify_one(r, istate, istate->cache_tree, &path)) { >> + strbuf_reset(&path); >> + verify_one(r, istate, istate->cache_tree, &path); >> + } >> strbuf_release(&path); >> } > > This is just a style thing, but I would find it easier to follow if > it just recursed into itself, i.e. > > - verify_one(...); > + if (verify_one(...)) > + cache_tree_verify(r, istate); > > or > > - verify_one(...); > + again: > + if (verify_one(...)) > + strbuf_reset(&path); > + goto again; > } } > > On the other hand, if the new code wants to say "I would retry at > most once, otherwise there is something wrong in me", then > >> - verify_one(r, istate, istate->cache_tree, &path); >> + if (verify_one(r, istate, istate->cache_tree, &path)) { >> + strbuf_reset(&path); >> + if (verify_one(r, istate, istate->cache_tree, &path)) >> + BUG("..."); >> + } > > would be better. I'm in favor of this second option. Thanks, -Stolee