Hi Randal
[cc'ing Patrick for the reftable writer]
On 25/02/2024 20:36, rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sunday, February 25, 2024 2:20 PM, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:
On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 02:08:35PM -0500, rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sunday, February 25, 2024 1:45 PM, I wrote:
To: git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
But I think that this should be used:
write_in_full()
My mailer autocorrected, yes, xwrite. write_in_full() would be safe,
although a bit redundant since xwrite() does similar things and is used by
write_in_full().
Note that unlike write_in_full(), xwrite() does not guarantee to write
the whole buffer passed to it. In general unless a caller is writing a
single byte or writing less than PIPE_BUF bytes to a pipe it should use
write_in_full().
The question is which call is bad? The cruft stuff is
relatively new and I don't know the code.
reftable/writer.c: int n = w->write(w->write_arg, zeroed,
w->pending_padding);
reftable/writer.c: n = w->write(w->write_arg, data, len);
Neither of these appear to check for short writes and
reftable_fd_write() is a thin wrapper around write(). Maybe
reftable_fd_write() should be using write_in_full()?
run-command.c: len = write(io->fd, io->u.out.buf,
This call to write() looks correct as it is in the io pump loop.
t/helper/test-path-utils.c: if (write(1, buffer,
count)
< 0) >>> t/helper/test-windows-named-pipe.c: write(1, buf, nbr);
t/helper/test-windows-named-pipe.c: write(1, buf, nbr);
In principle these all look like they are prone to short writes.
trace2/tr2_dst.c: bytes = write(fd, buf_line->buf, buf_line->len);
This caller explicitly says it prefers short writes over retrying
Best Wishes
Phillip
