On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 04:04:24PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote: > diff --git a/midx-write.c b/midx-write.c > index dd3b3070e55..c7cb2315431 100644 > --- a/midx-write.c > +++ b/midx-write.c > @@ -1699,19 +1699,23 @@ static void fill_included_packs_batch(struct repository *r, > for (i = 0; total_size < batch_size && i < m->num_packs; i++) { > int pack_int_id = pack_info[i].pack_int_id; > struct packed_git *p = m->packs[pack_int_id]; > - size_t expected_size; > + uint64_t expected_size; > > if (!want_included_pack(r, m, pack_kept_objects, pack_int_id)) > continue; > > - expected_size = st_mult(p->pack_size, > - pack_info[i].referenced_objects); > + expected_size = uint64_mult(p->pack_size, > + pack_info[i].referenced_objects); Makes sense. > expected_size /= p->num_objects; > > if (expected_size >= batch_size) > continue; > > - total_size += expected_size; > + if (unsigned_add_overflows (total_size, (size_t)expected_size)) > + total_size = SIZE_MAX; > + else > + total_size += expected_size; > + But this part I am not totally following. Here we have 'total_size' declared as a size_t, and 'expected_size' as a uint64_t, and (on 32-bit systems) down-cast to a 32-bit unsigned value. So if 'expected_size' is larger than SIZE_MAX, we should set 'total_size' to SIZE_MAX. But that may not happen, say if 'expected_size' is (2^32-1<<32). Should total_size also be declared as a uint64_t here? I wondered if it might be easier to count down from the given batch_size instead of adding up to it (requiring the second unsigned_add_overflows() check). I tried it out and got this instead: --- 8< --- diff --git a/midx-write.c b/midx-write.c index 48a4dc5e94..f81dd9ff6d 100644 --- a/midx-write.c +++ b/midx-write.c @@ -1671,7 +1671,7 @@ static void fill_included_packs_batch(struct repository *r, size_t batch_size) { uint32_t i; - size_t total_size; + uint64_t remaining = batch_size; struct repack_info *pack_info; int pack_kept_objects = 0; @@ -1695,23 +1695,23 @@ static void fill_included_packs_batch(struct repository *r, QSORT(pack_info, m->num_packs, compare_by_mtime); - total_size = 0; - for (i = 0; total_size < batch_size && i < m->num_packs; i++) { + for (i = 0; i < m->num_packs; i++) { int pack_int_id = pack_info[i].pack_int_id; struct packed_git *p = m->packs[pack_int_id]; - size_t expected_size; + uint64_t expected_size, factor; if (!want_included_pack(r, m, pack_kept_objects, pack_int_id)) continue; - expected_size = st_mult(p->pack_size, - pack_info[i].referenced_objects); - expected_size /= p->num_objects; + factor = pack_info[i].referenced_objects / p->num_objects; + if (p->pack_size > UINT64_MAX / factor) + die(...); - if (expected_size >= batch_size) - continue; + expected_size = p->pack_size * factor; + if (expected_size > remaining) + break; - total_size += expected_size; + remaining -= expected_size; include_pack[pack_int_id] = 1; } --- >8 --- That reduces the two overflow checks down to one, and avoids the need to introduce a uint64_t-specific variant of the st_add() function. Thanks, Taylor