Re: [PATCH 04/22] reftable/basics: handle allocation failures in `reftable_calloc()`

> On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 12:37:26PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> > In a sense, it is on the borderline to handle st_mult() overflow in
> > this function for a topic whose theme is about allocation failures.
> > 
> > From the point of view of callers of reftable_calloc(), whether the
> > arguments they are feeding the function is too large to be
> > multiplied or whether the request is too big for the underlying
> > allocator to handle, the end result should be the same: they
> > requested too large an allocation.
> > 
> > So I wouldn't complain that it is out of scope, if use of st_mult()
> > that computes the allocation size is fixed as part of this series.
> > But as I already said, I am also OK if we leave it to a separate
> > series to tackle other potential callers of die().
> 
> I'd leave it as-is for now, but I do have it on my agenda to address
> this, as well. I already have it as part of my third patch series in
> this context where I completely detangle the reftable library from the
> rest of Git to make it a reusable library for libgit2 and the likes.