Re: [PATCH v2] sha1_name: fix uninitialized memory errors

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

 



Derrick Stolee <dstolee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> diff --git a/sha1_name.c b/sha1_name.c
> index 611c7d24dd..a041d8d24f 100644
> --- a/sha1_name.c
> +++ b/sha1_name.c
> @@ -547,15 +547,15 @@ static void find_abbrev_len_for_pack(struct packed_git *p,
>  	 */
>  	mad->init_len = 0;
>  	if (!match) {
> -		nth_packed_object_oid(&oid, p, first);
> -		extend_abbrev_len(&oid, mad);
> +		if (nth_packed_object_oid(&oid, p, first))
> +			extend_abbrev_len(&oid, mad);
>  	} else if (first < num - 1) {
> -		nth_packed_object_oid(&oid, p, first + 1);
> -		extend_abbrev_len(&oid, mad);
> +		if (nth_packed_object_oid(&oid, p, first + 1))
> +			extend_abbrev_len(&oid, mad);
>  	}
>  	if (first > 0) {
> -		nth_packed_object_oid(&oid, p, first - 1);
> -		extend_abbrev_len(&oid, mad);
> +		if (nth_packed_object_oid(&oid, p, first - 1))
> +			extend_abbrev_len(&oid, mad);
>  	}
>  	mad->init_len = mad->cur_len;
>  }

I do not think they are wrong, but aren't the latter two somewhat
redundant?  "num" is p->num_objects, and we call (first+1)th element
only after we see (first < num - 1), i.e. first+1 < num, and the
access to (first-1)th is done only when first > 0.  The first one,
i.e. when first points at where we _would_ find it if it existed,
can access "first" that could be p->num_objects, so the change there
makes sense, though.




[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]

  Powered by Linux