On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:17:50AM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> > I think this is really the only safe and sane solution. We resisted it
> > because of the cost of the extra copies (especially the
> > update_tree_entry() one). But I don't know that anybody actually
> > measured it. Do you have
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 01:40:31AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 04:25:46AM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
>
> > There are a small number of places in our codebase where we cast a
> > buffer of unsigned char to a struct object_id pointer. When we have
> > GIT_MAX_RAWSZ set to 3
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 04:25:46AM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> There are a small number of places in our codebase where we cast a
> buffer of unsigned char to a struct object_id pointer. When we have
> GIT_MAX_RAWSZ set to 32 (because we have SHA-256), one of these places
> (the buffer for tr
There are a small number of places in our codebase where we cast a
buffer of unsigned char to a struct object_id pointer. When we have
GIT_MAX_RAWSZ set to 32 (because we have SHA-256), one of these places
(the buffer for tree objects) can lead to us copying too much data when
using SHA-1 as the ha
4 matches
Mail list logo
