Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> If do_one_ref() is called recursively, then the inner call should not
> permanently overwrite the value stored in current_ref by the outer
> call.  Aside from the tiny optimization loss, peel_ref() expects the
> value of current_ref not to change across a call to peel_entry().  But
> in the presence of replace references that assumption could be
> violated by a recursive call to do_one_ref:
> do_for_each_entry()
>   do_one_ref()
>     builtin/describe.c:get_name()
>       peel_ref()
>         peel_entry()
>           peel_object ()
>             deref_tag_noverify()
>               parse_object()
>                 lookup_replace_object()
>                   do_lookup_replace_object()
>                     prepare_replace_object()
>                       do_for_each_ref()
>                         do_for_each_entry()
>                           do_for_each_entry_in_dir()
>                             do_one_ref()
> The inner call to do_one_ref() was unconditionally setting current_ref
> to NULL when it was done, causing peel_ref() to perform an invalid
> memory access.
> So change do_one_ref() to save the old value of current_ref before
> overwriting it, and restore the old value afterward rather than
> setting it to NULL.
> Reported by: Mantas Mikulėnas <graw...@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu>
> ---


s/Reported by:/Reported-by:/ and lose the extra blank line after it?

I wonder if we can have an easy reproduction recipe in our tests.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to