Re: bug#13530: head: memory exhausted when printing all from stdin but last P/E bytes

[Pádraig Brady]

On 05/27/2013 01:29 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Pádraig Brady wrote:
> 
>> unarchive 13530
>> stop
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> ...
>>> @@ -358,6 +356,14 @@ elide_tail_bytes_pipe (const char *filename, int fd, 
>>> uintmax_t n_elide_0)
>>>
>>>            if (buffered_enough)
>>>              {
>>> +              if (n_elide_0 != n_elide)
>>> +                {
>>> +                  error (0, 0, _("memory exhausted while reading %s"),
>>> +                         quote (filename));
>>> +                  ok = false;
>>> +                  goto free_mem;
>>> +                }
>>> +
> ...
>> Oh right it's coming back to me a bit now.
>> So by removing these upfront checks where possible,
>> it only makes sense of the program could under different
>> free mem available, fulfil the operation up to the specified limit.
>> In this case though, the program could never fulfil the request,
>> so it's better to fail early as is the case in the code currently?
> 
> Well, it *can* fulfill the request whenever the request is degenerate,
> i.e., when the size of the input is smaller than N and also small enough
> to be read into memory.

Sure, but...

> Technically, we could handle this case the same way we handle it
> in tac.c: read data from nonseekable FD and write it to a temporary file.
> I'm not sure it's worth the effort here, though.

Yes ideally we could avoid this limit,
though I don't see it as a priority either.

> ...
>>> -(ulimit -v 20000; head --bytes=-E < /dev/null) || fail=1
>>> +(ulimit -v 20000; head --bytes=-$OFF_T_MAX < /dev/null) || fail=1
> 
> I'm inclined to make the above (nonseekable input) cases succeed,
> for consistency with the seekable-input case like this:
> 
>     : > empty
>     head --bytes=-E empty
> 
> I confess that I did not like the way my manual test ended up
> using so much memory... but it couldn't know if it was going
> to be able to succeed without actually reading/allocating all
> of that space.
> 
> If we give up immediately, we fail unnecessarily in cases like
> the above where the input is smaller than N.
> 
> What do you think?

... I'm inclined to treat a value that could never be
fulfilled in total as invalid.
Otherwise one might run into unexpected limits in _future_.
This is the same way we immediately error on values over UINTMAX_MAX,
rather truncating the values silently to something we can.

thanks,
Pádraig.