On Sat, Oct 02 2021, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 01 2021, Elijah Newren wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 1:47 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 30 2021, Elijah Newren wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 7:15 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
>>> > <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Sep 29 2021, Elijah Newren wrote:
[...]
>>> > I might be going on a tangent here, but looking at that patch, I'm
>>> > worried that dir_init() was buggy and that you perpetuated that bug
>>> > with DIR_INIT. Note that dir_struct has a struct strbuf basebuf
>>> > member, which neither dir_init() or DIR_INIT initialize properly
>>> > (using either strbuf_init() or STRBUF_INIT). As far as I can tell,
>>> > dir.c relies on either strbuf_add() calls to just happen to work with
>>> > this incorrectly initialized strbuf, or else use the strbuf_init()
>>> > call in prep_exclude() to do so, using the following snippet:
>>> >
>>> > if (!dir->basebuf.buf)
>>> > strbuf_init(&dir->basebuf, PATH_MAX);
>>> >
>>> > However, earlier in that same function we see
>>> >
>>> > if (stk->baselen <= baselen &&
>>> > !strncmp(dir->basebuf.buf, base, stk->baselen))
>>> > break;
>>> >
>>> > So either that function can never have dir->basebuf.buf be NULL and
>>> > the strbuf_init() is dead code, or else it's possible for us to
>>> > trigger a segfault. If it's the former, it may just be a ticking time
>>> > bomb that will transform into the latter with some other change,
>>> > because it's not at all obvious to me how dir->basebuf gets
>>> > initialized appropriately to avoid that strncmp call. Perhaps there
>>> > is some invariant where exclude_stack is only set up by previous calls
>>> > to prep_exclude() and those won't set up exclude_stack until first
>>> > initializing basebuf. But that really at least deserves a comment
>>> > about how we're abusing basebuf, and would probably be cleaner if we
>>> > initialized basebuf to STRBUF_INIT.
>>>
>>> ...because yes, I forgot about that when sending you the diff-on-top,
>>> sorry. Yes that's buggy with the diff-on-top I sent you.
>>
>> That bug didn't come from the diff-on-top you sent me, it came from
>> the commit already merged to master -- ce93a4c6127 (dir.[ch]: replace
>> dir_init() with DIR_INIT, 2021-07-01), merged as part of
>> ab/struct-init on Jul 16.
>
> Ah, I misunderstood you there. I'll look at that / fix it. Sorry.
Just to tie up this loose end: Yes this control flow suck, and I've got
some patches to unpack-trees.[ch] & dir.[ch] I'm about to submit to fix
it. But just to comment on the existing behavior of the code, i.e. your
(above):
"So either that function can never have dir->basebuf.buf be NULL and
the strbuf_init() is dead code, or else it's possible for us to
trigger a segfault.".
I hadn't had time to look into it when I said I'd fix it, but now that I
have I found thath there's nothing to fix, and this code wasn't buggy
either before or after my ce93a4c6127 (dir.[ch]: replace dir_init() with
DIR_INIT, 2021-07-01). I.e. we do have the invariant you mentioned.
The dir.[ch] API has always relied on the "struct dir_struct" being
zero'd out. First with memset() before your eceba532141 (dir: fix
problematic API to avoid memory leaks, 2020-08-18), and after my
ce93a4c6127 with the DIR_INIT, which both amount to the same thing.
We both missed a caller that used neither dir_init() nor uses DIR_INIT
now, but it uses "{ 0 }", so it's always zero'd.
Now, of course it being zero'd *would* segfault if you feed
"dir->basebuf.buf" to strncmp() as you note above, but that code isn't
reachable. The structure of that function is (pseudocode):
void prep_exclude(...)
{
struct exclude_stack *stk = NULL;
[...]
while ((stk = dir->exclude_stack) != NULL)
/* the strncmp() against "dir->basebuf.buf" is here */
/* maybe we'll early return here */
if (!dir->basebuf.buf)
strbuf_init(&dir->basebuf, PATH_MAX);
/*
* Code that sets dir->exclude_stack to non-NULL for the first
* time follows...
*/
}
I.e. dir->exclude_stack is *only* referenced in this function and
dir_clear() (where we also check it for NULL first).
It's state management between calls to prep_exclude(). So that that
initial while-loop can only be entered the the >1th time prep_exclude()
is called.
We'll then either have reached that strbuf_init() already, or if we took
an early return before the strbuf_init() we couldn't have set
dir->exclude_stack either. So that "dir->basebuf.buf" dereference is
safe in either case.
