Re: [PATCH 0/2] friendlier handling of overflows in archive-tar
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-21 18:44:26
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk
Junio, this is the jk/big-and-old-archive-tar topic. The interdiff is: ...diff --git a/archive-tar.c b/archive-tar.c index c7b85fd..ed562d4 100644 --- a/archive-tar.c +++ b/archive-tar.c@@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ static size_t get_path_prefix(const char *path, size_t pathlen, size_t maxlen) static inline unsigned long ustar_size(uintmax_t size) { - if (size < 077777777777UL) + if (size <= 077777777777UL) return size; else return 0;@@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ static inline unsigned long ustar_size(uintmax_t size) static inline unsigned long ustar_mtime(time_t mtime) { - if (mtime < 077777777777UL) + if (mtime <= 077777777777UL) return mtime; else return 0;@@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static int write_tar_entry(struct archiver_args *args, memcpy(header.linkname, buffer, size); } - if (ustar_size(size) != size) + if (S_ISREG(mode) && ustar_size(size) != size) strbuf_append_ext_header_uint(&ext_header, "size", size); if (ustar_mtime(args->time) != args->time) strbuf_append_ext_header_uint(&ext_header, "mtime", args->time);
Thanks. By the way, I realized the naming mistake and the topic branch is now named s/old/future/. Size being big is one condition that needs this fix, so is timestamp being from far future, not "old".