Re: [PATCH 2/3] revision: avoid out-of-bounds read/write on empty pathspec

> Running t4216 with ASan results in it complaining of an out-of-bounds
> read in prepare_to_use_bloom_filter(). The issue is this code to strip a
> trailing slash:
>
>   last_index = pi->len - 1;
>   if (pi->match[last_index] == '/') {
>
> because we have no guarantee that pi->len isn't zero. This can happen if
> the pathspec is ".", as we translate that to an empty string. And if
> that read of random memory does trigger the conditional, we'd then do an
> out-of-bounds write:
>
>   path_alloc = xstrdup(pi->match);
>   path_alloc[last_index] = '\0';
>
> Let's make sure to check the length before subtracting. Note that for an
> empty pathspec, we'd end up bailing from the function a few lines later,
> which makes it tempting to just:
>
>   if (!pi->len)
>           return;
>
> early here. But our code here is stripping a trailing slash, and we need
> to check for emptiness after stripping that slash, too. So we'd have two
> blocks, which would require repeating some cleanup code.
>
> Instead, just skip the trailing-slash for an empty string. Setting
> last_index at all in the case is awkward since it will have a nonsense
> value (and it uses an "int", which is a too-small type for a string
> anyway). So while we're here, let's:
>
>   - drop last_index entirely; it's only used in two spots right next to
>     each other and writing out "pi->len - 1" in both is actually easier
>     to follow
>
>   - use xmemdupz() to duplicate the string. This is slightly more
>     efficient, but more importantly makes the intent more clear by
>     allocating the correct-sized substring in the first place. It also
>     eliminates any question of whether path_alloc is as long as
>     pi->match (which it would not be if pi->match has any embedded NULs,
>     though in practice this is probably impossible).
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> ---
> Another variant is to actually stop assigning revs->bloom_filter_settings
> so early, so that we don't have to clean it up. And then once we're sure
> we're going to use it and have passed all of our early-return checks,
> then assign it. But that conflicts with the get_bloom_filter_settings()
> patch in:
>
>   https://lore.kernel.org/git/08479793c1274d5ee0f063578bb0f4d93c910fa9.1596480582.git.me@ttaylorr.com/
>
> so I didn't go that way.

>
>  revision.c | 7 ++-----
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c
> index 6de29cdf7a..5ed86e4524 100644
> --- a/revision.c
> +++ b/revision.c
> @@ -669,7 +669,6 @@ static void prepare_to_use_bloom_filter(struct rev_info *revs)
>  	struct pathspec_item *pi;
>  	char *path_alloc = NULL;
>  	const char *path, *p;
> -	int last_index;
>  	size_t len;
>  	int path_component_nr = 1;
>
> @@ -692,12 +691,10 @@ static void prepare_to_use_bloom_filter(struct rev_info *revs)
>  		return;
>
>  	pi = &revs->pruning.pathspec.items[0];
> -	last_index = pi->len - 1;
>
>  	/* remove single trailing slash from path, if needed */
> -	if (pi->match[last_index] == '/') {
> -		path_alloc = xstrdup(pi->match);
> -		path_alloc[last_index] = '\0';
> +	if (pi->len > 0 && pi->match[pi->len - 1] == '/') {
> +		path_alloc = xmemdupz(pi->match, pi->len - 1);

>  		path = path_alloc;
>  	} else
>  		path = pi->match;
> --
> 2.28.0.536.ga4d8134877