From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFH] pp_header(): work around possible memory corruption Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:19:37 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <7vps3w4g9x.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jun 19 02:19:44 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1I0RRf-0003b4-QA for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:19:44 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760535AbXFSATm (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:19:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758774AbXFSATm (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:19:42 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:35840 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754155AbXFSATm (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:19:42 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2007 00:19:40 -0000 Received: from wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de (EHLO localhost) [132.187.25.13] by mail.gmx.net (mp042) with SMTP; 19 Jun 2007 02:19:40 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX187bHFHqyA7IIO1PX1/tciRoNOi59N87NNmVHD5wi HbV3oUtMXp3N7d X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <7vps3w4g9x.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.pobox.com> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > At least the older humongous pretty_print_commit() got separated into > manageable chunks, and I was happy. I was just too lazy when > refactoring the code and stopped there. That's perfectly okay. This is why you parked it in 'next', I guess. > The right fix is to propagate the "realloc as needed" callchain into > add_user_info(), instead of having "this should be enough" there. > These two you touched are the only two callsite of that static function. Right. As I said, I was in a hurry, and could not research it properly. Besides, now that you gave me the proper pointer, I can take care about it tomorrow, unless somebody else is faster. Ciao, Dscho