Hi,
Sorry about the delay here (bit of a mix-up and didn't reply to the list).
(see inline )
On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 9:41 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 1:57 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(trimming)
>
> Specifically, I was worried about this assertion:
>
> Lets rely on the fact that the source buffer will only be fully
> consumed when the when the destination buffer is inflated to the
> correct size.
>
> which I think is the exact bad thinking that caused troubles for us
> in the past; isn't the explanation in 456cdf6e ("Fix loose object
> uncompression check.", 2007-03-19) relevant here?
>
> - stream.avail_out = size + 1;
> + stream.avail_out = size;
> ...
> stream.next_in = in;
> st = git_inflate(&stream, Z_FINISH);
> if (!stream.avail_out)
> - break; /* the payload is larger than it should be */
> + break; /* done, st indicates if source fully consumed */
> curpos += stream.next_in - in;
> } while (st == Z_OK || st == Z_BUF_ERROR);
> git_inflate_end(&stream);
> if ((st != Z_STREAM_END) || stream.total_out != size) {
> free(buffer);
> return NULL;
> }
>
> With minimum stream.avail_out without slack, when !avail_out, i.e.
> when we fully filled the output buffer, it could be that we had
> correct input that deflates to the correct size, in which case we
> are happy---st would say Z_STREAM_END, we would leave the loop
> because it is neither OK nor BUF_ERROR, and total_out would report
> the size we expected. Or the input zlib stream may have ended with
> bytes that express "this concludes the stream", and the input bytes
> before that was sufficient to construct the original payload fully,
> and we may have just fed the bytes before that "this concludes the
> stream" to git_inflate().
>
> In such a case, we haven't consumed all the avail_in. We may
> already have all the correct output, i.e. !avail_out, but because we
> haven't consumed the "this concludes the stream", st is not
> STREAM_END in such a case.
If I understand correctly your concerned the avail_in is longer than
what is required to fill the output buffer..
I'm fairly sure that won't result in a Z_STREAM_END, as you rightfully
point out, but the loop _will_ terminate due to the output buffer
being full and then since its not Z_STREAM_END the
unpack_compressed_entry fails, as it should.
>
> Our existing while() loop, with one-byte slack in avail_out, would
> have let us continue and the next iteration of the loop would have
> consumed the input without producing any more output (i.e. avail_out
> would have been left to 1 in both of these final two rounds) and we
> would have exited the loop. After calling inflate_end(), we would
> have noticed STREAM_END and correct size and we would have been
> happy.
Your assuming that zlib will terminate with an error, but a fully
decompressed buffer, because it hasn't consumed the entire input
buffer. I don't think that is how it works (its not how the
documentation is written, nor the bits of code i've looked at seem to
work, which granted i'm not a zlib maintainer).
>
> The updated code would handle this latter case rather badly, no? We
> leave the loop early, notice st is not STREAM_END, and be very
> unhappy, because this patch did not give us to consume the very end
> of the input stream and left the loop early.
Your correct if the above case is a valid zlib behavior then there
would be a problem. But, I don't think the termination is dicated by
insufficient output space until there is an attempt to utilize that
space.
>
>>> This yields two problems, first a single byte overrun won't be detected
>>> properly because the Z_STREAM_END will then be set, but the null
>>> terminator will have been overwritten.
>
> Because we compare total_out and size at the end, we would detect it
> as an error in this function, no? Then zlib overwriting NUL would
> not be a problem, as we would free the buffer and return NULL, no?
>
>>> The other problem is that
>>> more recent zlib patches have been poisoning the unconsumed portions
>>> of the buffers which also overwrites the null, while correctly
>>> returning length and status.
>
> Isn't that a bug in zlib, though? Or do they do that deliberately?
>
> I think a workaround with lower impact would be to manually restore
> NUL at the end of the buffer.
I agree, just resetting the NULL its likely safer, and I will repost a
patch soon which if nothing else makes git more robust to errant zlib
behavior.
