Re: Memory corruption when rebasing with git version 1.8.1.5 on arch
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Mar 19, 2013, 13:44 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20130319134452.GA6752@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <51484125.9000307@bernhard-posselt.com>
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:42:45AM +0100, Bernhard Posselt wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> it seems that the memory corruption does not happen anymore when i change > > [apply] > whitespace = fix > > to > > [apply] > #whitespace = fix > > so fixing whitespaces may be the culprit
Thanks, I'm able to reproduce with the config you showed. The other key element seems to be using tab-in-indent. I am not too familiar with this code, but I was able to get a much smaller reproduction recipe:
-- >8 --
# make tabs more obvious by using "Q" instead
q_to_tab() {
perl -lpe 's/Q/\t/g'
}q_to_tab >preimage <<\EOF
QQa
QQb
QQc
d
QQe
QQf
QQg
EOFq_to_tab >patch <<\EOF
diff --git a/preimage b/preimage --- a/preimage +++ b/preimage @@ -1,7 +1,6 @@ public static function store($filename) { QQa QQb QQc -QQd QQe QQf QQg EOF valgrind \ git -c core.whitespace=tab-in-indent apply --whitespace=fix patch -- 8< -- which yields: ==7112== Invalid write of size 2 ==7112== at 0x4C2C023: memcpy (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so) ==7112== by 0x40C365: update_pre_post_images (apply.c:2165) ==7112== by 0x40CC52: match_fragment (apply.c:2402) [...] ==7112== Address 0x6e57a5e is 0 bytes after a block of size 94 alloc'd ==7112== at 0x4C2A26B: malloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so) ==7112== by 0x4C2A51F: realloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so) ==7112== by 0x535193: xrealloc (wrapper.c:100) ==7112== by 0x51C322: strbuf_grow (strbuf.c:74) ==7112== by 0x51C10C: strbuf_init (strbuf.c:34) ==7112== by 0x40D329: apply_one_fragment (apply.c:2602) [...] and so on. I haven't quite figured out what is going on. It looks like we call update_pre_post_images with postlen==0, which causes it to just write the fixed postimage into the existing buffer. But of course the fixed version is bigger, because we are expanding the tabs into 8 spaces (but it _doesn't_ break if each line starts with only one tab, which confuses me). I'm not too familiar with this code. Maybe Junio can say more. -Peff