Re: [PATCH 3/4] reftable/stack: fix zero-sized allocation when there are no readers

> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> 
> > Similar as the preceding commit, we may try to do a zero-sized
> > allocation when reloading a reftable stack that ain't got any tables.
> > It is implementation-defined whether malloc(3p) returns a NULL pointer
> > in that case or a zero-sized object. In case it does return a NULL
> > pointer though it causes us to think we have run into an out-of-memory
> > situation, and thus we return an error.
> >
> > Fix this by only allocating arrays when they have at least one entry.
> > Refactor the code so that we don't try to access those arrays in case
> > they are empty.
> >
> > Reported-by: Randall S. Becker <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
> > ---
> >  reftable/stack.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> >  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> 
> This somehow did not cleanly apply, so I whiggled it in manually.
> 
> I probably wouldn't mixed the "size_t i" changes into this fix if I
> were doing it.  To avoid "while (*names)" loop, I would have made it
> to "for (size_t j = 0; j < names_len; j++)" and kept the existing
> use of "i" intact, instead.  And reintroducing for() scoped "i"
> three times did not seem to make it easier to read the result.
> 
> I am not convinced we need to avoid "while (*names)", by the way.
> If "names" were NULL, names_length() would already have segfaulted
> anyway, and basics.c:parse_names(), when not returning NULL (which
> would have been caught by the sole caller of reload_once() as an
> error), makes sure it gives its caller a NULL-terminated array.