Re: [PATCH 4/5] log: handle integer overflow in timestamps

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:21:33PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> >> > +	if (date_overflows(date))
>> >> > +		date = 0;
>> >> > +	else {
>> >> > +		if (ident->tz_begin && ident->tz_end)
>> >> > +			tz = strtol(ident->tz_begin, NULL, 10);
>> >> > +		if (tz == LONG_MAX || tz == LONG_MIN)
>> >> > +			tz = 0;
>> >> > +	}
>> >> 
>> >> ... don't we want to fix an input having a bogus timestamp and also
>> >> a bogus tz recorded in it?
>> >
>> > If there is a bogus timestamp, then we do not want to look at tz at all.
>> > We leave it at "0", so that we get a true sentinel:
>> 
>> Ah, OK, I missed the initialization to 0 at the beginning.
>> 
>> It might have been more clear if "int tz" declaration were left
>> uninitialized, and the variable were explicitly cleared to 0 in the
>> "date-overflows" error codepath, but it is not a big deal.
>
> It might be, but I think it would end up cumbersome.
> ...
> So I'd be in favor of keeping it as-is, but feel free to mark it up if
> you feel strongly.

I'd be in favor of keeping it as-is.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]