Repository navigation
attr, fsck: scan across embedded NUL bytes in .gitattributes - #2473
inanna-malick wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
When reading a .gitattributes file from the working tree, read_attr_from_file() uses strbuf_getline(), which reads up to each '\n' regardless of embedded NUL bytes and continues parsing subsequent lines. However, both fsck_blob() (when checking FSCK_MSG_GITATTRIBUTES_LINE_LENGTH) and read_attr_from_buf() (when reading .gitattributes from a tree or index blob) iterate with `for (ptr = buf; *ptr; )` and `strchrnul(ptr, '\n')`, stopping early at the first embedded NUL byte. An embedded NUL on an early comment line (such as "#\0\n") therefore causes fsck_blob() and cached attribute lookups to ignore the remainder of the blob while working tree attribute lookups still parse it. Use the known buffer size (`end = buf + size` and `memchr(..., '\n', ...)`) in both fsck_blob() and read_attr_from_buf() so that .gitattributes blobs are scanned across their full length consistently with read_attr_from_file(). Found via agent swarm driven property tests using https://recursion.wtf/posts/agents-and-property-tests/ Signed-off-by: Inanna Malick <inanna@recursion.wtf>
Welcome to GitGitGadgetHi @inanna-malick, and welcome to GitGitGadget, the GitHub App to send patch series to the Git mailing list from GitHub Pull Requests. Please make sure that either:
You can CC potential reviewers by adding a footer to the PR description with the following syntax: NOTE: DO NOT copy/paste your CC list from a previous GGG PR's description, Also, it is a good idea to review the commit messages one last time, as the Git project expects them in a quite specific form:
It is in general a good idea to await the automated test ("Checks") in this Pull Request before contributing the patches, e.g. to avoid trivial issues such as unportable code. Contributing the patchesBefore you can contribute the patches, your GitHub username needs to be added to the list of permitted users. Any already-permitted user can do that, by adding a comment to your PR of the form Both the person who commented An alternative is the channel Once on the list of permitted usernames, you can contribute the patches to the Git mailing list by adding a PR comment If you want to see what email(s) would be sent for a After you submit, GitGitGadget will respond with another comment that contains the link to the cover letter mail in the Git mailing list archive. Please make sure to monitor the discussion in that thread and to address comments and suggestions (while the comments and suggestions will be mirrored into the PR by GitGitGadget, you will still want to reply via mail). If you do not want to subscribe to the Git mailing list just to be able to respond to a mail, you can download the mbox from the Git mailing list archive (click the curl -g --user "<EMailAddress>:<Password>" \
--url "imaps://imap.gmail.com/INBOX" -T /path/to/raw.txtTo iterate on your change, i.e. send a revised patch or patch series, you will first want to (force-)push to the same branch. You probably also want to modify your Pull Request description (or title). It is a good idea to summarize the revision by adding something like this to the cover letter (read: by editing the first comment on the PR, i.e. the PR description): To send a new iteration, just add another PR comment with the contents: Need help?New contributors who want advice are encouraged to join git-mentoring@googlegroups.com, where volunteers who regularly contribute to Git are willing to answer newbie questions, give advice, or otherwise provide mentoring to interested contributors. You must join in order to post or view messages, but anyone can join. You may also be able to find help in real time in the developer IRC channel, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟡 Changes recommended
Regression coverage is missing for embedded-NUL handling in fsck and attribute lookups, so existing tests would still pass if the fixes were reverted.
2 open issues
What changed in this PR
This PR makes .gitattributes blob scanning continue past embedded NUL bytes, aligning tree and index attribute lookups with working-tree behavior and preventing fsck from skipping later oversized lines.
Changes:
- Replace NUL-terminated traversal with size-bounded newline searches in both scanners.
- Handle final lines without a trailing newline.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
fsck.c |
Check attribute line lengths across the full blob, including content after embedded NULs. |
attr.c |
Continue parsing tree and index attribute rules after lines containing embedded NULs. |
Review effort: Balanced

When reading a
.gitattributesfile from the working tree,read_attr_from_file()usesstrbuf_getline(), which reads up to each'\n'regardless of embedded NUL bytes and continues parsing subsequent lines.However, both
fsck_blob()(when checkingFSCK_MSG_GITATTRIBUTES_LINE_LENGTH) andread_attr_from_buf()(when reading.gitattributesfrom a tree or index blob) iterate withfor (ptr = buf; *ptr; )andstrchrnul(ptr, '\n'), stopping early at the first embedded NUL byte. An embedded NUL on an early comment line (such as"#\0\n") therefore causesfsck_blob()and cached attribute lookups to ignore the remainder of the blob while working tree attribute lookups still parse it.Use the known buffer size (
end = buf + sizeandmemchr(..., '\n', ...)) in bothfsck_blob()andread_attr_from_buf()so that.gitattributesblobs are scanned across their full length consistently withread_attr_from_file().Found via agent swarm driven property tests using https://recursion.wtf/posts/agents-and-property-tests/