Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > I do think we'd fail to notice the truncation, which isn't ideal. But it > looks like the rest of the script suffers from the same issue. > > If anybody cares, it might not be too hard to wrap all of the 512-byte > read calls into a helper that dies on bogus input. Perhaps. In any case, the patch presented here is an improvement over the status quo, so let's move the world forward by taking it without any further "while at it" fixes, which can come later when people feel inclined to do so. Thanks, both, for writing and reviewing ;-)
