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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, 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 EA0FC1F47C for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 23:58:53 +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=CNasxzxY; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230398AbjASX6t (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2023 18:58:49 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54344 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230161AbjASX6n (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2023 18:58:43 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-x62a.google.com (mail-pl1-x62a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38B95A19B9 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 15:58:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id 12so1104234plo.3 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 15:58:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=3Mm+selwD2zSmMEI4NVLHkr6pgOd+mimqKzelm+kJcI=; b=CNasxzxY3ZpPfg94WXg4/F8UYCAqnYLgqCeXFxbFyG58l+z4lwUYYU6ko2f/IY5uJI FTPm7kcbdMuslnYnTKJIZ25c6XvRQgbfIL+H1szRzvGvLUxoYB1suo3Qbg0f3IpZ/d46 fk6TPUAw7xmHL8HxyR8mrpZmi8XKb0wdQEPaOSwQ0ocjYQQK+AxYsO/BAMFOFfqHncPt j6pBzwjfaFTYbiFtV7dAk1Ua2DbTulw4/fYSBhsdZYPCjSdapY9rJqY/FkNfnGV1u1mk jH3VpzM2HetCQM194iibOrVv1Sfr73w9MzUVGx3KqfAGBP/LBW5InBJb6WpSqNTTleOq BWPg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=3Mm+selwD2zSmMEI4NVLHkr6pgOd+mimqKzelm+kJcI=; b=lavamM7Mjtm6MaSkzJ8DAuqa4eP7bo6YIvbyyKNQ7ai0tHBpbJJd5UAh+fENAD1fhl 0ta15QpdfgxNLTxB2lMbHfCIlxIJBWsOEWNMTsRk7TyaSt1uF+5+5/whUmHTf2apq2OG 5NpfY6ewUdMSCHv89KOfJzTQEV+um931zLTAWI++U2+idm3+KZEXVnZZqX003zycv5l9 uF0xgNU3qO5ZOuxinUFzZLuMbH130FrUZxGIuEuQbcQTDZaHoVvDodyPrz3mHzqzdhq0 u05fY5sfIkCMc0jiBHPe6FBGShAGd8lOo70/Rg6Xl3799bGCBQ8oypVc/Tu3md/EcUrw lk5g== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2kqlOXAJRGr1EXZaqciMcNvr8K9429HQ/o4RrCOYfqZU7owFBnYT FNKAmzuEdFwXZ7/ksvAtq8aiBDXb9R4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXshMVXj3pe0h6jgDR18xpqEVEwyV5S56fyKiPsVTNKzuRNpbRJfvNXHV6rv7xlNjsSn6DEbxg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:950c:b0:228:d353:9612 with SMTP id t12-20020a17090a950c00b00228d3539612mr13268564pjo.31.1674172714025; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 15:58:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (33.5.83.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.83.5.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i8-20020a17090a65c800b002294615bf59sm220676pjs.18.2023.01.19.15.58.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 19 Jan 2023 15:58:33 -0800 (PST) Sender: Junio C Hamano From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Taylor Blau , =?utf-8?Q?Ren?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9?= Scharfe , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/6] fsck: do not assume NUL-termination of buffers References: Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 15:58:33 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 19 Jan 2023 18:13:29 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > So here's the result of my digging on this. The good news is that this > one commit on top of the rest of the series should make everything safe. > I'm sorry the explanation is a bit long, but I wanted to capture a bit > of the history, the subtle assumptions, and how I approached analyzing > and fixing it. > > There are a few paths forward here: > > - apply this on top of the earlier 6 patches. This is the simplest > thing, and my preference. It does mean that t3800 temporarily has a > read-one-char-past-buffer bug that is detected by ASan after patch 6 > but before this patch is applied. That sounds reasonable, even though purist among us may find it slightly disturbing that it breaks "bisectability". > Anyway, here's the patch. I'm happy to repost the whole 7-patch series, > too, but since the earlier ones didn't change in my preferred path > forward, this seemed easier for now. ;) Thanks. Will queue.