From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A95211FF40 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 19:21:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752143AbcFWTV2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:21:28 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:59292 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750876AbcFWTV1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:21:27 -0400 Received: (qmail 2107 invoked by uid 102); 23 Jun 2016 19:21:26 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:21:26 -0400 Received: (qmail 14068 invoked by uid 107); 23 Jun 2016 19:21:41 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:21:41 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:21:24 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:21:24 -0400 From: Jeff King To: =?utf-8?B?UmVuw6k=?= Scharfe Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] archive-tar: write extended headers for file sizes >= 8GB Message-ID: <20160623192124.GA32745@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20160616043523.GA13615@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160616043733.GA18323@sigill.intra.peff.net> <57687413.3030609@web.de> <20160621155920.GA7549@sigill.intra.peff.net> <5769A6CC.9030001@web.de> <20160621210234.GB4747@sigill.intra.peff.net> <576A2625.8010706@web.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <576A2625.8010706@web.de> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 07:46:13AM +0200, René Scharfe wrote: > Yes, it's only useful as a debug flag, but the fact that it breaks > highlights a (admittedly mostly theoretical) shortcoming: The code doesn't > handle extended headers that are over the size limit as nicely as it could. > So the test was already worth it, even if won't land in master. :) Kind of. It was impossible to trigger in the original (and we still don't actually handle it in the revised version; we just die in xsnprintf). But still, I'll go with the simpler thing we've discussed here. The symmetry with ustar_mtime isn't worth it, and doubly so if we just write a single pax header. -Peff