From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_DKIM_INVALID shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24ADE1F51C for ; Sun, 27 May 2018 11:53:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755198AbeE0Lxj (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 May 2018 07:53:39 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-f195.google.com ([209.85.128.195]:38822 "EHLO mail-wr0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755142AbeE0Lxi (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 May 2018 07:53:38 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f195.google.com with SMTP id 94-v6so15976695wrf.5 for ; Sun, 27 May 2018 04:53:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=P+EyAPtKj08XT2HJM7hUF0Af+SxktcJpSflpZxzy2ls=; b=r9EO+UEQWK5Apobw8gACRYFSLT68XId2+GihxQcUS1xws7NyJDxUcMRcaGjYg8QU/S xw0b7X+kTLGmykGvQ5XyVh5jxegmsAd+SZyMdy/2BdLcMPiSvZJ8Cv7m2laYh7/F2S7o WV/FmPpmZXldQu0yVX9sAsHSRJuQkDNEI3t+T8M1IFgodPm26Wg5TrEjCY2FFTcX2IHr 8buJcKOiWxyumD5PrhLOBOoc4DJlT7KFPrJ1POc4b2xCe0xYHOEfXF4Ju2akOfg2K8ps XD92DqRmxI9MzTZ/wtxSEL8KsBU0101QoNkLO9l+zVzr5iemdRJBBtWFNn2w+SzOvCnB vrAg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=P+EyAPtKj08XT2HJM7hUF0Af+SxktcJpSflpZxzy2ls=; b=IIZbsfkCghKwDkNYqkhzeCi38+HaxyPIJOr0/b5pNpyBhBPS+fkS1h3q3+dEX7Nw/g Iw7vPWZ4Dxw3FkLuhxp5XEko6O7ADsW9+qmeWsWClnMZCvf95SiiqtWL74WQyFq1cfVn QHKUC9504j4TGn2e6IpukKaNiyvVVrEewfz+yZzNo7L5CAo0n2TpCTaKaAAJ4snMujG3 2TkJWV6i+ACPEimBHzgRrE5chfLDBmxXJHm45K8UQj+xzB6C8xLcHZBmdlZdLWuG7G29 DljM0wsF2RbwuCpBPHz/koYZsMYdwmoJUmfB8NGnUx3OJJppe/FyjPWIOtCnkfYZEVqd xKJg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwfQgalDcX5uzcWOXAl2SOR4/aLLpmOTXDJJBar4bi5zkRXF3t1i GEBsgaeL6gkHKwkvLChoWxp1rpA3 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZq3rnAA7pChekyqJ0uMVEGULj01gXCz3igZ+saqsK5OAN+JP1Md5Ldh3hgoJyBcl1yjWdA5/A== X-Received: by 2002:adf:c08a:: with SMTP id d10-v6mr6739523wrf.268.1527422016989; Sun, 27 May 2018 04:53:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (168.50.187.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.187.50.168]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g78-v6sm14233209wmc.27.2018.05.27.04.53.35 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Sun, 27 May 2018 04:53:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Duy Nguyen Cc: Jeremy Linton , Git Mailing List , Jonathan Tan Subject: Re: [PATCH] packfile: Correct zlib buffer handling References: <20180525225601.22575-1-lintonrjeremy@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 20:53:35 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Duy Nguyen's message of "Sun, 27 May 2018 07:02:05 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Duy Nguyen writes: > On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 1:57 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Duy Nguyen writes: >> >>> On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 12:56 AM, Jeremy Linton wrote: >>>> @@ -1416,7 +1416,7 @@ static void *unpack_compressed_entry(struct packed_git *p, >>>> return NULL; >>>> memset(&stream, 0, sizeof(stream)); >>>> stream.next_out = buffer; >>>> - stream.avail_out = size + 1; >>>> + stream.avail_out = size; >>> >>> You may want to include in your commit message a reference to >>> 39eea7bdd9 (Fix incorrect error check while reading deflated pack data >>> - 2009-10-21) which adds this plus one with a fascinating story >>> behind. >> >> A bit puzzled---are you saying that this recent patch breaks the old >> fix and must be done in some other way? > > No. I actually wanted to answer that question when I tried to track > down the commit that adds " + 1" but I did not spend enough time to > understand the old problem. I guess your puzzle means you didn't think > it would break anything, which is good. No it merely means I am puzzled how the posted patch that goes directly opposite to what an earlier "fix" did is a correct solution to anything X-<.