From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] chunk-format: introduce `pair_chunk_expect()` helper
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 13:55:48 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqedgyw6jv.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <af5fe3b7237caeba8f970e967933db96c83a230e.1699569246.git.me@ttaylorr.com> (Taylor Blau's message of "Thu, 9 Nov 2023 17:34:11 -0500")
Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:
> +static int pair_chunk_expect_fn(const unsigned char *chunk_start,
> + size_t chunk_size,
> + void *data)
> +{
> + struct pair_chunk_data *pcd = data;
> + if (chunk_size / pcd->record_size != pcd->record_nr)
> + return -1;
> + *pcd->p = chunk_start;
> + return 0;
> +}
I know one of the original places did the "divide the whole by
per-record size and see if it matches the number of records", the
same as we see above, but the check in the above could also be
if (chunk_size != st_mult(pcd->record_size, pcd->record_nr))
return -1;
which would also catch the case where chunk_size is not a multiple
of the record size. Your conversion of OOFF in midx.c loses this
protection as the original uses the multiplication-and-compare, but
the rewrite to call pair_chunk_expect would call the above and
checks with the truncating-divide-and-compare.
Does the distinction matter? I dunno. If the record/chunk
alignment is asserted elsewhere, then the distinction should not
matter, but even if it were, seeing a truncating division used in
any validation makes my skin tingle.
Other than that, the series was a pleasant read.
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-10 6:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-09 7:03 [PATCH 0/9] some more chunk-file bounds-checks fixes Jeff King
2023-11-09 7:09 ` [PATCH 1/9] commit-graph: handle overflow in chunk_size checks Jeff King
2023-11-09 21:13 ` Taylor Blau
2023-11-09 21:27 ` Jeff King
2023-11-09 7:12 ` [PATCH 2/9] midx: check consistency of fanout table Jeff King
2023-11-09 7:13 ` [PATCH 3/9] commit-graph: drop redundant call to "lite" verification Jeff King
2023-11-09 7:14 ` [PATCH 4/9] commit-graph: clarify missing-chunk error messages Jeff King
2023-11-09 7:17 ` [PATCH 5/9] commit-graph: abort as soon as we see a bogus chunk Jeff King
2023-11-09 21:18 ` Taylor Blau
2023-11-09 7:24 ` [PATCH 6/9] commit-graph: use fanout value for graph size Jeff King
2023-11-09 21:20 ` Taylor Blau
2023-11-09 21:38 ` Jeff King
2023-11-09 22:15 ` Taylor Blau
2023-11-10 21:52 ` Jeff King
2023-11-09 7:25 ` [PATCH 7/9] commit-graph: check order while reading fanout chunk Jeff King
2023-11-09 7:25 ` [PATCH 8/9] commit-graph: drop verify_commit_graph_lite() Jeff King
2023-11-09 7:26 ` [PATCH 9/9] commit-graph: mark chunk error messages for translation Jeff King
2023-11-09 21:22 ` [PATCH 0/9] some more chunk-file bounds-checks fixes Taylor Blau
2023-11-09 22:34 ` [PATCH 0/7] chunk-format: introduce `pair_chunk_expect()` Taylor Blau
2023-11-09 22:34 ` [PATCH 1/7] chunk-format: introduce `pair_chunk_expect()` helper Taylor Blau
2023-11-10 4:55 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2023-11-10 16:27 ` Taylor Blau
2023-11-10 22:01 ` Jeff King
2023-11-10 23:39 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-11-10 23:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-11-10 21:57 ` Jeff King
2023-11-10 22:09 ` Jeff King
2023-11-10 22:08 ` Jeff King
2024-01-15 22:31 ` Linus Arver
2024-01-15 22:53 ` Linus Arver
2024-01-16 15:10 ` Jeff King
2024-01-18 23:59 ` Linus Arver
2023-11-09 22:34 ` [PATCH 2/7] commit-graph: read `OIDL` chunk with `pair_chunk_expect()` Taylor Blau
2023-11-10 22:10 ` Jeff King
2023-11-09 22:34 ` [PATCH 3/7] commit-graph: read `CDAT` " Taylor Blau
2023-11-09 22:34 ` [PATCH 4/7] commit-graph: read `GDAT` " Taylor Blau
2023-11-09 22:34 ` [PATCH 5/7] commit-graph: read `BIDX` " Taylor Blau
2023-11-09 22:34 ` [PATCH 6/7] midx: read `OIDL` " Taylor Blau
2023-11-09 22:34 ` [PATCH 7/7] midx: read `OOFF` " Taylor Blau
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqedgyw6jv.fsf@gitster.g \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=me@ttaylorr.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).