David Turner <dtur...@twosigma.com> writes:
> @@ -250,14 +250,14 @@ static const char *lock_repo_for_gc(int force, pid_t*
> ret_pid)
> ...
> if (!force) {
> - static char locking_host[128];
> + static char locking_host[HOST_NAME_MAX + 1];
> int should_exit;
> fp = fopen(pidfile_path, "r");
> memset(locking_host, 0, sizeof(locking_host));
I compared the result of applying this v2 directly on top of master
and applying René's "Use HOST_NAME_MAX"and then applying your v1.
This hunk is the only difference.
As this locking_host is used like so in the later part of the code:
time(NULL) - st.st_mtime <= 12 * 3600 &&
fscanf(fp, "%"SCNuMAX" %127c", &pid, locking_host) == 2
&&
/* be gentle to concurrent "gc" on remote hosts */
(strcmp(locking_host, my_host) || !kill(pid, 0) ||
errno == EPERM);
I suspect that turning it to HOST_NAME_MAX + 1 without tweaking
the format "%127c" gives us an inconsistent resulting code.
Of course, my_host is sized to HOST_NAME_MAX + 1 and we are
comparing it with locking_host, so perhaps we'd need to take this
version to size locking_host to also HOST_NAME_MAX + 1, and then
scan with %255c (but then shouldn't we scan with %256c instead? I
am not sure where these +1 comes from).
