From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 851E21F698 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2022 07:03:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=aB+FbTMO; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231264AbiL2HDG (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Dec 2022 02:03:06 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:43212 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231255AbiL2HDC (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Dec 2022 02:03:02 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-x1030.google.com (mail-pj1-x1030.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1030]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8869F1260B for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2022 23:03:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x1030.google.com with SMTP id w4-20020a17090ac98400b002186f5d7a4cso22163252pjt.0 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2022 23:03:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:subject:cc:to:from:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=bLUpzCzK3CQT/3Kph5RW8fbvaVURlll2Bt1na7w4J7c=; b=aB+FbTMO3QW4Mh3BwnFju1H27A7WccYPtqO0/2DZRnyvmpTeX/4PgUR0G/MVHsN0pA Mvo22xjFeXDdF34EohyIs27j2dSavuh20ORsnk82fFsv4iYMnnGk1Ld/RA7+bJ6sjh4w bkjKf+0T9b7VR0L72MEB0kDDHj5H9BCt7SxtVrhXzpA0skmEkvXt/7GAbNPyLOxCrlqe /2JHOZnEnTwSwhugfhtAUBv6y6IFOsbHRKbpEbqa5vItZex3f96WXnvStuIj2cHDZJ/9 hg6ViicHGnIyMapcMvOSYikc2i/kqeTeDV0IXaZ/4AVTttoXCAuvTOvCXZUY5vzAS4yB NcEg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:subject:cc:to:from:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=bLUpzCzK3CQT/3Kph5RW8fbvaVURlll2Bt1na7w4J7c=; b=JsaPZbQbErihkjFxSQq9wQ9XEGbPDHaoIdcGiHBmHUFf8zhxJh/FgTmwVv+DZhefXX COyJMRy6hMIi6tartD7SQnCWtZXTwaz9hFWIAxZXnNRBFz1QfIgIrUfjS06sr5aFXmZj CE/ex/kDJ09w3GyDUMABMUJBEO5aNgXdq77fCeF+LznP/++PUTQfvIbbU1at2y9ivKXw C/cvivkEyZemrryZynPSv+9Q9KH8RoEkgJUr0e3ILmz7WWVSW5rH8ygTlrJ2wuFUt6sM MRkjRJ3pHeGKGYUXdnVKLU9lKSObQEqrRUspSBEYtQnixG6h4jCzk/anpEw+lW1dE/yy dqMQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2krXWctn4Z8HzFI2Bh3LUTzZcdzuUbqS5Mg2shiJfaXYtMwAIKGq rZsTnhhu1XmON22FBDq083w= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXsEkUYijr8Y0pkHavnGxEIVlVwwXJ3k5KRWn0BTdFNeW0WzccfNbdMyFQoatKjyvERO0hjdaw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:f38d:b0:192:62df:a3e9 with SMTP id f13-20020a170902f38d00b0019262dfa3e9mr19096045ple.68.1672297379827; Wed, 28 Dec 2022 23:02:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (33.5.83.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.83.5.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t9-20020a170902e1c900b001927ebc40e2sm6595674pla.193.2022.12.28.23.02.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 28 Dec 2022 23:02:59 -0800 (PST) Sender: Junio C Hamano From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?Q?Ren=C3=A9?= Scharfe Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/20] stash: fix a "struct pathspec" leak References: Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2022 16:02:59 +0900 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org René Scharfe writes: > Am 28.12.22 um 19:00 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason: >> Call clear_pathspec() on the pathspec initialized in >> push_stash(). > > This puzzled me for a while. This patch adds an {0} initializer to the > declaration of the pathspec. I assumed that this is necessary to avoid > giving clear_pathspec() an uninitialized struct. It isn't, though, > because the pathspec is handed to parse_pathspec() first, which > initializes it. So you can safely drop the first hunk. It did mislead me too. I expected that addition of "= { 0 }" was to remove memset('\0') somewhere else, but that is not the case.