From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff•net>
Cc: "Johannes Schindelin" <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx•de>,
git@vger•kernel.org, "René Scharfe" <l.s.r@web•de>,
"Johannes Sixt" <j6t@kdbg•org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] t5000: test tar files that overflow ustar headers
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 13:22:01 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqbn20otqu.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160714201018.GA18372@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 14 Jul 2016 16:10:18 -0400")
Jeff King <peff@peff•net> writes:
>> +#if ULONG_MAX == 0x7FFFFFFF
>> +#define USTAR_MAX_SIZE ULONG_MAX
>> +#define USTAR_MAX_MTIME ULONG_MAX
>> +#else
>> #define USTAR_MAX_SIZE 077777777777UL
>> #define USTAR_MAX_MTIME 077777777777UL
>> +#endif
>>
>> /* writes out the whole block, but only if it is full */
>> static void write_if_needed(void)
>
> If for some reason we are wrong that objects cannot be larger than
> ULONG_MAX (e.g., later on we convert everything to size_t, and 64-bit
> LLP platforms handle large objects just fine), then we would prematurely
> switch to extended headers on those platforms.
>
> I think that's OK. This would just need cleaned up as part of the
> conversion from "unsigned long" to "size_t" (the correct check would
> then be against the max size_t).
> Also, shouldn't it be checking against 0xFFFFFFFF?
Correct. Somehow I thought I was checking with LONG_MAX. Will correct.
> An easier check would be "sizeof()", but I guess we can't use that in a
> preprocessor directive.
Yes, I tried it and failed ;-)
>> -test_expect_success TAR_HUGE 'system tar can read our huge size' '
>> +test_expect_success TAR_HUGE,64BIT 'system tar can read our huge size' '
>
> The 64BIT prereq is really "unsigned long is 64-bit". I wonder if we
> should call it UL64 or something like that to make it more clear.
>
> That makes it unnecessarily tied-in with the implementation, but it does
> make it more clear what we care about; the distinction matters for
> things like LP64 vs LLP64.
I do not think any platform is weird enough to have different sizes
for long and ulong, so I am not sure you need UL64.
But pointer size can legitimately be different, so it has a value to
differentiate between LP64 and LLP64, if we start doing things like
"does this platform have large virtual address space?"
LONG_IS_64BIT perhaps to be more readable?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-14 20:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-30 9:06 [PATCH v4 0/5] friendlier handling of overflows in archive-tar Jeff King
2016-06-30 9:07 ` [PATCH v4 1/5] t9300: factor out portable "head -c" replacement Jeff King
2016-07-01 4:45 ` Eric Sunshine
2016-07-01 17:23 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-07-01 18:01 ` Jeff King
2016-06-30 9:08 ` [PATCH v4 2/5] t5000: test tar files that overflow ustar headers Jeff King
2016-07-14 15:47 ` Johannes Schindelin
2016-07-14 16:45 ` Johannes Sixt
2016-07-14 17:08 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-07-14 20:52 ` Johannes Sixt
2016-07-14 21:32 ` Jeff King
2016-07-14 22:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-07-14 22:38 ` Jeff King
2016-07-15 13:37 ` Torsten Bögershausen
2016-07-15 13:46 ` Jeff King
2016-07-14 22:26 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-07-14 18:24 ` Jeff King
2016-07-14 18:21 ` Jeff King
2016-07-14 20:00 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-07-14 20:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-07-14 20:14 ` Jeff King
2016-07-14 20:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-07-14 20:10 ` Jeff King
2016-07-14 20:22 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2016-07-14 20:27 ` Jeff King
2016-07-14 20:34 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-07-14 20:43 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] ulong may only be 32-bit wide Junio C Hamano
2016-07-14 20:43 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] t0006: skip "far in the future" test when unsigned long is not long enough Junio C Hamano
2016-07-14 20:43 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] archive-tar: huge offset and future timestamps would not work on 32-bit Junio C Hamano
2016-07-14 22:20 ` Jeff King
2016-07-14 22:36 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-07-16 6:28 ` Duy Nguyen
2016-07-15 15:10 ` [PATCH v4 2/5] t5000: test tar files that overflow ustar headers Johannes Schindelin
2016-07-15 16:49 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-06-30 9:09 ` [PATCH v4 3/5] archive-tar: write extended headers for file sizes >= 8GB Jeff King
2016-07-14 16:48 ` Johannes Sixt
2016-07-14 17:11 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-07-14 18:16 ` Jeff King
2016-07-15 2:59 ` Torsten Bögershausen
2016-06-30 9:09 ` [PATCH v4 4/5] archive-tar: write extended headers for far-future mtime Jeff King
2016-06-30 9:09 ` [PATCH v4 5/5] archive-tar: drop return value Jeff King
2016-06-30 9:14 ` [PATCH v4 6/5] t5000: use test_match_signal Jeff King
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqbn20otqu.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com \
--to=gitster@pobox$(echo .)com \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx$(echo .)de \
--cc=git@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=j6t@kdbg$(echo .)org \
--cc=l.s.r@web$(echo .)de \
--cc=peff@peff$(echo .)net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox