After finding a MIME multi-part message boundary line, the handle_body()
function is supposed to first flush any accumulated contents from the
previous part to the output stream. However, the code mistakenly output
the boundary line it found.
The old code that used one global, fixed-length buffer line[] used an
alternate static buffer newline[] for keeping track of this accumulated
contents and flushed newline[] upon seeing the boundary; when 3b6121f
(git-mailinfo: use strbuf's instead of fixed buffers, 2008-07-13)
converted a fixed-length buffer in this program to use strbuf,these two
buffers were converted to "line" and "prev" (the latter of which now has a
much more sensible name) strbufs, but the code mistakenly flushed "line"
(which contains the boundary we have just found), instead of "prev".
This resulted in the first boundary to be output in front of the first
line of the message.
The rewritten implementation of handle_boundary() lost the terminating
newline; this would then result in the second line of the message to be
stuck with the first line.
The is_multipart_boundary() was designed to catch both the internal
boundary and the terminating one (the one with trailing "--"); this also
was broken with the rewrite, and the code in the handle_boundary() to
handle the terminating boundary was never triggered.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"Subject: " isn't in the static array "header", and thus
memcmp("Subject:", header[i], 7) will never match.
Even if it did so, hdr_data[] may not have been allocated if there weren't
a "Subject: " in-body when we process "[PATCH]" in the affected codepath.
Signed-off-by: Lukas Sandström <lukass@etek.chalmers.se>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The function is intended to be fed one logical line at a time to
inspect, but a QP encoded raw input line can have more than one
lines, just like BASE64 encoded one.
Quoting LF as =0A may be unusual but RFC2045 allows it.
The issue was noticed and fixed by Jay Soffian. JC added a test
to protect the fix from regressing later.
Signed-off-by: Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
It basically considers all the continuation lines to be lines of their
own, and if the total line is bigger than what we can fit in it, we just
truncate the result rather than stop in the middle and then get confused
when we try to parse the "next" line (which is just the remainder of the
first line).
[jc: added test, and tightened boundary a bit per list discussion.]
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Currently the test passes with 1.3.3 but not with the tip of
"master". This is to verify the fixes from Eric W Biedermann.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
