| Message ID | pull.372.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | fsmonitor: don't fill bitmap with entries to be removed | expand |
Hi all, On Thu, 3 Oct 2019, William Baker via GitGitGadget wrote: > This patch series fixes a segfault that I encountered while testing > fsmonitor. Under some circumstances, the fsmonitor extension was being > written with too many bits, and subsequent git commands would segfault when > trying to apply the bits to the index. > > As part of these changes I've added some BUG checks that would have helped > catch this problem sooner. Special thanks to Dscho for pointing me in the > right direction and suggesting a test that can reproduce the issue. > > Thanks, William Please note that I was involved with the development of this patch, reviewed a couple of iterations internally and am implictly okay with this first public iteration. Ciao, Dscho > > William Baker (1): > fsmonitor: don't fill bitmap with entries to be removed > > fsmonitor.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > t/t7519-status-fsmonitor.sh | 12 ++++++++++++ > t/t7519/fsmonitor-env | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > create mode 100755 t/t7519/fsmonitor-env > > > base-commit: 5fa0f5238b0cd46cfe7f6fa76c3f526ea98148d9 > Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-372%2Fwilbaker%2Ffix_git_fsmonitor_crash-v1 > Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-372/wilbaker/fix_git_fsmonitor_crash-v1 > Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/372 > -- > gitgitgadget >
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes: > Hi all, > > On Thu, 3 Oct 2019, William Baker via GitGitGadget wrote: > >> This patch series fixes a segfault that I encountered while testing >> fsmonitor. Under some circumstances, the fsmonitor extension was being >> written with too many bits, and subsequent git commands would segfault when >> trying to apply the bits to the index. >> >> As part of these changes I've added some BUG checks that would have helped >> catch this problem sooner. Special thanks to Dscho for pointing me in the >> right direction and suggesting a test that can reproduce the issue. >> >> Thanks, William > > Please note that I was involved with the development of this patch, > reviewed a couple of iterations internally and am implictly okay with > this first public iteration. IOW, "Reviewed-by: dscho". That's good to hear. THanks.