| Message ID | Yxl1hcX97W4wpWNj@coredump.intra.peff.net (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 3fbfbbb7e3c21515a2863702734fe31bf50672fd |
| Headers | show |
| Series | plugging some list-objects-filter leaks | expand |
diff --git a/list-objects-filter-options.c b/list-objects-filter-options.c index 4b25287886..41c41c9d45 100644 --- a/list-objects-filter-options.c +++ b/list-objects-filter-options.c @@ -418,6 +418,7 @@ void list_objects_filter_copy( string_list_init_dup(&dest->filter_spec); for_each_string_list_item(item, &src->filter_spec) string_list_append(&dest->filter_spec, item->string); + dest->sparse_oid_name = xstrdup_or_null(src->sparse_oid_name); ALLOC_ARRAY(dest->sub, dest->sub_alloc); for (i = 0; i < src->sub_nr; i++)
The purpose of our copy function is to do a deep copy of each field so that the source and destination structs become independent. We correctly copy the filter_spec string list, but we forgot the sparse_oid_name field. By doing a shallow copy of the pointer, that puts us at risk for a use-after-free if one or both of the structs is cleaned up. I don't think this can be triggered in practice, because we tend to leak the structs rather than actually clean them up. But this should future-proof us for plugging those leaks. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> --- I think this is the only thing missing. You can correlate with the _release() function to see what other things might need a deep copy, and everything else seems covered. list-objects-filter-options.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)