Repository navigation
Conversation
Welcome to GitGitGadgetHi @msuozzo, and welcome to GitGitGadget, the GitHub App to send patch series to the Git mailing list from GitHub Pull Requests. Please make sure that either:
You can CC potential reviewers by adding a footer to the PR description with the following syntax: NOTE: DO NOT copy/paste your CC list from a previous GGG PR's description, Also, it is a good idea to review the commit messages one last time, as the Git project expects them in a quite specific form:
It is in general a good idea to await the automated test ("Checks") in this Pull Request before contributing the patches, e.g. to avoid trivial issues such as unportable code. Contributing the patchesBefore you can contribute the patches, your GitHub username needs to be added to the list of permitted users. Any already-permitted user can do that, by adding a comment to your PR of the form Both the person who commented An alternative is the channel Once on the list of permitted usernames, you can contribute the patches to the Git mailing list by adding a PR comment If you want to see what email(s) would be sent for a After you submit, GitGitGadget will respond with another comment that contains the link to the cover letter mail in the Git mailing list archive. Please make sure to monitor the discussion in that thread and to address comments and suggestions (while the comments and suggestions will be mirrored into the PR by GitGitGadget, you will still want to reply via mail). If you do not want to subscribe to the Git mailing list just to be able to respond to a mail, you can download the mbox from the Git mailing list archive (click the curl -g --user "<EMailAddress>:<Password>" \
--url "imaps://imap.gmail.com/INBOX" -T /path/to/raw.txtTo iterate on your change, i.e. send a revised patch or patch series, you will first want to (force-)push to the same branch. You probably also want to modify your Pull Request description (or title). It is a good idea to summarize the revision by adding something like this to the cover letter (read: by editing the first comment on the PR, i.e. the PR description): To send a new iteration, just add another PR comment with the contents: Need help?New contributors who want advice are encouraged to join git-mentoring@googlegroups.com, where volunteers who regularly contribute to Git are willing to answer newbie questions, give advice, or otherwise provide mentoring to interested contributors. You must join in order to post or view messages, but anyone can join. You may also be able to find help in real time in the developer IRC channel, |
|
Invalid author email in 9b2bc74: "1393068+msuozzo@users.noreply.github.com" |
An object record's count of offsets is a 64-bit varint from the table, and reftable_obj_record_decode() allocates the offsets array from it through REFTABLE_ALLOC_ARRAY(), which takes a size_t. Where size_t is 32 bits, a count of 2^32 + 1 allocates room for one offset, and the loop, which runs to the full count, writes an offset from the table for each varint left in the block past the end of the array. Where size_t is 64 bits, a large count only makes a large allocation that the decode then fails to fill. Nothing in Git reaches this decoder from a repository: a block of a type other than the one wanted is refused before its records are decoded, and the object index, the only reader of object blocks, is used only by the unit tests. The decoder is still wrong. Each offset takes at least a byte, so refuse a count larger than what is left of the record. The Makefile did not build the reftable record unit tests (the Meson build does). Add the suite there so that the new test runs in both. Assisted-by: Claude Opus 5.5, Claude Fable 5.1 Signed-off-by: Matthew Suozzo <m@suozzo.co>
9b2bc74 to
5fb73ec
Compare
|
/allow |
|
User msuozzo is now allowed to use GitGitGadget. WARNING: msuozzo has no public email address set on GitHub; GitGitGadget needs an email address to Cc: you on your contribution, so that you receive any feedback on the Git mailing list. Go to https://github.com/settings/profile to make your preferred email public to let GitGitGadget know which email address to use. |
|
/preview |
|
Preview email sent as pull.2255.git.1791989689429.gitgitgadget@gmail.com |
|
/submit |
|
Submitted as pull.2255.git.1791989883899.gitgitgadget@gmail.com To fetch this version into To fetch this version to local tag |
|
Patrick Steinhardt wrote on the Git mailing list (how to reply to this email): On Wed, Oct 14, 2026 at 02:58:03PM +0000, Matthew Suozzo via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: Matthew Suozzo <m@suozzo.co>
>
> An object record's count of offsets is a 64-bit varint from the table,
> and reftable_obj_record_decode() allocates the offsets array from it
> through REFTABLE_ALLOC_ARRAY(), which takes a size_t. Where size_t is
> 32 bits, a count of 2^32 + 1 allocates room for one offset, and the
> loop, which runs to the full count, writes an offset from the table
> for each varint left in the block past the end of the array. Where
> size_t is 64 bits, a large count only makes a large allocation that
> the decode then fails to fill.
>
> Nothing in Git reaches this decoder from a repository: a block of a
> type other than the one wanted is refused before its records are
> decoded, and the object index, the only reader of object blocks, is
> used only by the unit tests. The decoder is still wrong.
>
> Each offset takes at least a byte, so refuse a count larger than what
> is left of the record.
Sorry, but this whole commit message reads very AI-generated to me, as
it is both overly verbose and hard to parse. I would welcome it if you
could maybe touch up the message for normal human beings.
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index a96be506b5..66b7270fc0 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -1551,6 +1551,7 @@ CLAR_TEST_SUITES += u-reftable-block
> CLAR_TEST_SUITES += u-reftable-merged
> CLAR_TEST_SUITES += u-reftable-pq
> CLAR_TEST_SUITES += u-reftable-readwrite
> +CLAR_TEST_SUITES += u-reftable-record
> CLAR_TEST_SUITES += u-reftable-stack
> CLAR_TEST_SUITES += u-reftable-table
> CLAR_TEST_SUITES += u-reftable-tree
Makes sense, even though this should probably have been in its own
patch.
> diff --git a/reftable/record.c b/reftable/record.c
> index 1fce441930..96eceddca7 100644
> --- a/reftable/record.c
> +++ b/reftable/record.c
> @@ -589,6 +589,10 @@ static int reftable_obj_record_decode(void *rec, struct reftable_buf key,
> if (count == 0)
> return start.len - in.len;
>
> + /* each offset takes at least a byte */
> + if (count > in.len)
> + return REFTABLE_FORMAT_ERROR;
This check doesn't really seem to match what you're describing. What you
describe is an integer overflow, but you only check for a very specific
edge ecase here. I would have expected for example that...
> REFTABLE_ALLOC_ARRAY(r->offsets, count);
... this line already detects the overflow and then refuses the
operation. Because `REFTABLE_ALLOC_ARRAY()` itself already tries to
check for overflows.
That being said, if you take a look at `reftable_alloc_size()` you can
see that the input is both of type `size_t`. And _that_ is indeed broken
on platforms where `size_t` is 32 bits, as we'd potentially wrap. But
that fact is not even mentioned as part of the commit message at all.
So overall I'm not convinced that this fix makes sense, we should rather
fix the source of the problem, which is `reftable_alloc_size()`.
Thanks!
Patrick |
|
m@suozzo.co wrote on the Git mailing list (how to reply to this email): October 19, 2026 at 3:46 AM, "Patrick Steinhardt" <ps@pks.im mailto:ps@pks.im?to=%22Patrick%20Steinhardt%22%20%3Cps%40pks.im%3E > wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2026 at 02:58:03PM +0000, Matthew Suozzo via GitGitGadget wrote:
>
> >
> > From: Matthew Suozzo <m@suozzo.co>
> >
> > An object record's count of offsets is a 64-bit varint from the table,
> > and reftable_obj_record_decode() allocates the offsets array from it
> > through REFTABLE_ALLOC_ARRAY(), which takes a size_t. Where size_t is
> > 32 bits, a count of 2^32 + 1 allocates room for one offset, and the
> > loop, which runs to the full count, writes an offset from the table
> > for each varint left in the block past the end of the array. Where
> > size_t is 64 bits, a large count only makes a large allocation that
> > the decode then fails to fill.
> >
> > Nothing in Git reaches this decoder from a repository: a block of a
> > type other than the one wanted is refused before its records are
> > decoded, and the object index, the only reader of object blocks, is
> > used only by the unit tests. The decoder is still wrong.
> >
> > Each offset takes at least a byte, so refuse a count larger than what
> > is left of the record.
> >
> Sorry, but this whole commit message reads very AI-generated to me, as
> it is both overly verbose and hard to parse. I would welcome it if you
> could maybe touch up the message for normal human beings.
yeah it was AI generated and i copy-edited it. it didn't feel too excessive since i wanted to be precise about the issue's mechanism, scope (32-bit only), severity (not really reachable), and describe the fix.
any pointers on how you'd reword? remove the exposition?
>
> >
> > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> > index a96be506b5..66b7270fc0 100644
> > --- a/Makefile
> > +++ b/Makefile
> > @@ -1551,6 +1551,7 @@ CLAR_TEST_SUITES += u-reftable-block
> > CLAR_TEST_SUITES += u-reftable-merged
> > CLAR_TEST_SUITES += u-reftable-pq
> > CLAR_TEST_SUITES += u-reftable-readwrite
> > +CLAR_TEST_SUITES += u-reftable-record
> > CLAR_TEST_SUITES += u-reftable-stack
> > CLAR_TEST_SUITES += u-reftable-table
> > CLAR_TEST_SUITES += u-reftable-tree
> >
> Makes sense, even though this should probably have been in its own
> patch.
happy to move it to a separate patch.
>
> >
> > diff --git a/reftable/record.c b/reftable/record.c
> > index 1fce441930..96eceddca7 100644
> > --- a/reftable/record.c
> > +++ b/reftable/record.c
> > @@ -589,6 +589,10 @@ static int reftable_obj_record_decode(void *rec, struct reftable_buf key,
> > if (count == 0)
> > return start.len - in.len;
> >
> > + /* each offset takes at least a byte */
> > + if (count > in.len)
> > + return REFTABLE_FORMAT_ERROR;
> >
> This check doesn't really seem to match what you're describing. What you
> describe is an integer overflow, but you only check for a very specific
> edge ecase here. I would have expected for example that...
>
> >
> > REFTABLE_ALLOC_ARRAY(r->offsets, count);
> >
> ... this line already detects the overflow and then refuses the
> operation. Because `REFTABLE_ALLOC_ARRAY()` itself already tries to
> check for overflows.
>
> That being said, if you take a look at `reftable_alloc_size()` you can
> see that the input is both of type `size_t`. And _that_ is indeed broken
> on platforms where `size_t` is 32 bits, as we'd potentially wrap. But
> that fact is not even mentioned as part of the commit message at all.
isn't that "REFTABLE_ALLOC_ARRAY(), which takes a size_t" in the original message?
>
> So overall I'm not convinced that this fix makes sense, we should rather
> fix the source of the problem, which is `reftable_alloc_size()`.
that felt like a pretty disruptive change i was hesitant to put up as my first patch but i'd be happy to make the change.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Patrick
> |
2 participants
cc: Patrick Steinhardt ps@pks.im