Hi Peff, On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 2:24 PM Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 12:23:29PM -0800, Elijah Newren wrote: > > > > > while (len && path[len - 1] == '/') > > > > len--; > > > > if (!len) > > > > return 1; > > > > + > > > > + de = xcalloc(1, sizeof(struct dirent)+len+1); > > > > > > That "+len+1" may deserve a comment? > > > > Good point, I'll add one and send a re-roll. > > Please use st_add3() while you are at it. I would, but Junio already took the patches and applied them to next already. (I am curious, though, why we're worried about overflow in a context like this?) > I'd also usually suggest FLEX_ALLOC_MEM() for even more simplicity, but > it looks like filling the string is handled separately (and done many > times). Yes, the string is handled separately; I don't manufacture a dirent per leading directory component of the common prefix, but just allocate one and re-use it. > I have to wonder, though, if it wouldn't be simpler to move away from > "struct dirent" here (and it looks like Junio suggested the same earlier > in the thread). I don't know this code very well, but it looks > like it could easily get by passing around a name pointer and a dtype > through the cached_dir. The patch below seems like it's not too bad a > cleanup, but possibly the names could be better. This was mentioned twice upthread, first by me then by Junio (and I'll include my final response too): >>> I need to manufacture a dirent myself; short of that, the most >>> likely alternative is to drop patches 2 & 5-8 of this series and >>> throw my hands in the air and give up. >>> ... >>> It'd be an awful lot of work to rip [dirent] out...unless someone >>> else has some bright ideas about something clever we can do, then I >>> think this problem blows up in complexity to a level where I don't >>> think it's worth addressing. >>> ... >>> Any bright ideas about what to do here? >> >> Restructuring the code so that we do not use "struct dirent" in the >> first place, even in the original code that used only those obtained >> from readdir(), perhaps? > > Okay, I'll submit a new series dropping most the patches. It's possible I vastly overestimated how much work ripping out the dirent would be; I mean I've mis-estimated absolutely everything in dir.c and assumed each "little" thing would all be a small amount of work, so maybe I'm just swinging the pendulum too far the other way. But, although I think this alternative would be the cleanest, I saw a couple things that looked like this was going to turn into a huge can of worms when I started to peek at what it all touched. I'd be happy for someone to take this route, but it won't be me (see also https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BEkX9cH1=r3dJ4WLzcJKVcF-KpGUkshL34MMp3Xhhhpuw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/). Elijah
