Re: [RFC/WIP PATCH 06/11] remote.h: add get_remote_capabilities, request_capabilities

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

 



On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:25:05PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>
>> > +               len = packet_read(in, &src_buf, &src_len,
>> > +                                 packet_buffer, sizeof(packet_buffer),
>> > +                                 PACKET_READ_GENTLE_ON_EOF |
>> > +                                 PACKET_READ_CHOMP_NEWLINE);
>> > +               if (len < 0)
>> > +                       die_initial_contact(0);
>> > +
>> > +               if (!len)
>> > +                       break;
>> > +
>> > +               if (len > 4 && skip_prefix(line, "ERR ", &arg))
>>
>> The 'len > 4' check is needed because there's no guarantee that 'line'
>> is NUL-terminated. Correct?
>
> I think this was just blindly copied from get_remote_heads(). And I
> think that code was being overly paranoid. Ever since f3a3214 (Make
> send/receive-pack be closer to doing something interesting, 2005-06-29),
> the pkt-line reader will add an extra NUL to the buffer to ease cases
> like this.

Thanks. I had started digging into packet_read() to determine whether
it guaranteed NUL-termination, but didn't get far enough to decide. I
agree that if NUL-termination is guaranteed, then the 'len > 4' check
is superfluous (and confusing, which is why it caught my attention in
the first place).
--
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]