From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sideband.c: Use xmalloc() instead of variable-sized arrays. Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 09:41:26 -0800 Message-ID: <7v4pdotdtl.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <4783A3B2.3060801@viscovery.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Git Mailing List To: Johannes Sixt X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jan 08 18:42:14 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JCISn-0008TP-KR for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:42:10 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752601AbYAHRlm (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:41:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752246AbYAHRlm (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:41:42 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:38696 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751450AbYAHRll (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:41:41 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28B5783B8; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:41:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C31A283AF; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:41:34 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <4783A3B2.3060801@viscovery.net> (Johannes Sixt's message of "Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:24:18 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Sixt writes: > From: Johannes Sixt > > How come we got along with this not very portable construct for so long? > Probably because the array sizes were computed from the results of > strlen() of string constants. Anyway, a follow-up patch will make the > lengths really non-constant. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt > --- > sideband.c | 14 ++++++++++++-- > 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/sideband.c b/sideband.c > index 756bbc2..513d7b3 100644 > --- a/sideband.c > +++ b/sideband.c > @@ -19,7 +19,10 @@ int recv_sideband(const char *me, int in_stream, int out, int err) > { > unsigned pf = strlen(PREFIX); > unsigned sf = strlen(SUFFIX); > - char buf[pf + LARGE_PACKET_MAX + sf + 1]; > + char *buf, *save; > + > + save = xmalloc(sf); > + buf = xmalloc(pf + LARGE_PACKET_MAX + sf + 1); I have to wonder if the malloc() overhead is small enough compared to the network bandwidth to make a two malloc-free pairs per packet a non-issue...