Re: [PATCH 1/3] pack-objects: fix tree_depth and layer invariants
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 17:37:18 +0100
- From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] pack-objects: fix tree_depth and layer invariants
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 11:04 AM Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Commit 108f530385 (pack-objects: move tree_depth into 'struct
> packing_data', 2018-08-16) dynamically manages a tree_depth array in
> packing_data that maintains one of these invariants:
> 1. tree_depth is NULL (i.e., the requested options don't require us to
> track tree depths)
> 2. tree_depth is non-NULL and has as many entries as the "objects"
> We maintain (2) by:
> a. When the objects array grows, grow tree_depth to the same size
> (unless it's NULL, in which case we can leave it).
> b. When a caller asks to set a depth via oe_set_tree_depth(), if
> tree_depth is NULL we allocate it.
> But in (b), we use the number of stored objects, _not_ the allocated
> size of the objects array. So we can run into a situation like this:
> 1. packlist_alloc() needs to store the Nth object, so it grows the
> objects array to M, where M > N.
> 2. oe_set_tree_depth() wants to store a depth, so it allocates an
> array of length N. Now we've violated our invariant.
> 3. packlist_alloc() needs to store the N+1th object. But it _doesn't_
> grow the objects array, since N <= M still holds. We try to assign
> to tree_depth[N+1], which is out of bounds.
Do you think if this splitting data to packing_data is too fragile
that we should just scrape the whole thing and move all data back to
object_entry? We would use more memory of course but higher memory
usage is still better than more bugs (if these are likely to show up