Re: [PATCH 4/5] log: handle integer overflow in timestamps

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:21:33PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+	if (date_overflows(date))
+		date = 0;
+	else {
+		if (ident->tz_begin && ident->tz_end)
+			tz = strtol(ident->tz_begin, NULL, 10);
+		if (tz == LONG_MAX || tz == LONG_MIN)
+			tz = 0;
+	}

... don't we want to fix an input having a bogus timestamp and also
a bogus tz recorded in it?

If there is a bogus timestamp, then we do not want to look at tz at all.
We leave it at "0", so that we get a true sentinel:

Ah, OK, I missed the initialization to 0 at the beginning.

It might have been more clear if "int tz" declaration were left
uninitialized, and the variable were explicitly cleared to 0 in the
"date-overflows" error codepath, but it is not a big deal.

It might be, but I think it would end up cumbersome.
...
So I'd be in favor of keeping it as-is, but feel free to mark it up if
you feel strongly.

I'd be in favor of keeping it as-is.