Re: [PATCH 4/9] cache-tree: avoid strtol() on non-string buffer

> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 12:26:06PM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> > Hm. I'm not a huge fan of not having any error handling at all. It just
> > feels way too fragile for my taste:
> >
> >   - As you mention we don't detect overflows, as we would detect them at
> >     a later point in time when trying to access index entries at invalid
> >     offsets. But if the input is crafted in a way that the overflow ends
> >     up with a reasonable index entry we might just as well _not_ detect
> >     that an overflow has happened and end up using the wrong index
> >     entry.
> >
> >   - We don't verify that we even have a number in the first place. We'd
> >     simply return "0" in that case and not advance the pointer. This is
> >     fine though as we verify that the returned size is non-zero, so we'd
> >     detect this case.
> >
> > I'd much rather prefer to have an interface similar to `git_parse_int()`
> > and related functions, which are way easier to use compared to the likes
> > of `stroi()`.
> 
> Those git_parse_XYZ() functions all end up calling either
> git_parse_signed() or git_parse_unsigned() under the hood, which bolts
> on our k/m/g suffixes, which we probably don't want here when parsing an
> on-disk format.