-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.9k
split: reject excessive suffix lengths #12609
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
wondr-wclabs
wants to merge
1
commit into
uutils:main
Choose a base branch
from
wondr-wclabs:codex/split-large-suffix-length
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+88
−42
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why 4096 ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I picked 4096 as a conservative allocation guard, not as a semantic suffix limit.
The failure mode here is that
split -a <huge>flows into filename construction and can request an absurd allocation before the filename could ever be useful.4096is around the common full-path limit on Linux and is already far above typical filename-component limits such as 255 bytes. Since the suffix is appended to the output prefix to form one filename component, values in the thousands are already beyond realistic portable usage, while still keeping the guard loose enough that we do not reject any plausible manual-avalue.So the tradeoff was: make the cap high enough to avoid changing normal behavior, but low enough that pathological inputs cannot allocate attacker-sized strings. If you would rather make the bound stricter and tie it to a component-oriented limit instead, I can switch this to a
NAME_MAX-style value such as 255, or rename/comment it more explicitly as an allocation guard.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ok - my point was more: it should be documented in the code :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agreed. I updated the code comment so it explains that 4096 is an allocation guard rather than a semantic suffix limit, and documents the path-limit / filename-component tradeoff directly next to the constant.
That should make the choice reviewable from the code without needing the PR discussion context.