Re: [PATCH] [Outreachy PATCH] diff-delta: use safe integer arithmetic
- From
- Srujith Poojary <poojarysrujith@gmail.com>
- Date
- Oct 23, 2026, 05:29 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CABh_KWiKmXP4KTgF=k2gGdSvcZXkRipD61AVn+AS7ZgvhcjHWw@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqld7paty9.fsf@gitster.g>
On Fri, Oct 23, 2026 at 10:34 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 64 quoted lines
>
> "Srujith A Poojary via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> > From: Srujith A Poojary <poojarysrujith@gmail.com>
> >
> > Replace manual multiplication and addition in create_delta_index()
> > with safe integer helpers (st_mult, st_add, st_add3) to prevent
> > overflows while preserving NULL returns on failure.
>
> I do not quite understand what the last part of this explanation
> wants to say, i.e., "while preserving NULL returns on failure". It
> makes it sound as if the function would return NULL if the integer
> helpers detect integer overflow, but I do not think that is what
> actually the updated code does at all. st_add() and friends will
> simply die() when overflow happens, so you will not even reach
> malloc(), let alone return NULL when the malloc fails.
>
> And if you reply to this review message, please do not top-post.
>
> Thanks.
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Srujith A Poojary <poojarysrujith@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > [Outreachy PATCH] diff-delta: use safe integer arithmetic
> >
> > Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-2276%2Fpoojarysrujith%2Fc-refactor-target-name-v1
> > Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-2276/poojarysrujith/c-refactor-target-name-v1
> > Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/2276
> >
> > diff-delta.c | 10 +++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/diff-delta.c b/diff-delta.c
> > index 7cbedeb507..45df070ab9 100644
> > --- a/diff-delta.c
> > +++ b/diff-delta.c
> > @@ -162,8 +162,8 @@ struct delta_index * create_delta_index(const void *buf, size_t bufsize)
> > hmask = hsize - 1;
> >
> > /* allocate lookup index */
> > - memsize = sizeof(*hash) * hsize +
> > - sizeof(*entry) * entries;
> > + memsize = st_add(st_mult(sizeof(*hash), hsize),
> > + st_mult(sizeof(*entry), entries));
> > mem = malloc(memsize);
> > if (!mem)
> > return NULL;
> > @@ -258,9 +258,9 @@ struct delta_index * create_delta_index(const void *buf, size_t bufsize)
> > * Now create the packed index in array form
> > * rather than linked lists.
> > */
> > - memsize = sizeof(*index)
> > - + sizeof(*packed_hash) * (hsize+1)
> > - + sizeof(*packed_entry) * entries;
> > + memsize = st_add3(sizeof(*index),
> > + st_mult(sizeof(*packed_hash), hsize + 1),
> > + st_mult(sizeof(*packed_entry), entries));
> > mem = malloc(memsize);
> > if (!mem) {
> > free(hash);
> >
> > base-commit: 47fdf2208c5b94c8cc01c106b8f7c85efb91c926Hi Junio,
Thank you for clarifying this. You are right—st_add() and st_mult() call die() on overflow rather than returning NULL. I will update the commit message to accurately reflect this behavior and submit v2.
Best regards, Srujith