Thanks to Krzysztof Kotlenga <pocek@users.sf.net>:
authorticktock35 <ticktock35@e8e0d7a0-c8d9-11dd-a880-a1081c7ac358>
Wed, 4 Mar 2009 00:59:35 +0000 (00:59 +0000)
committerticktock35 <ticktock35@e8e0d7a0-c8d9-11dd-a880-a1081c7ac358>
Wed, 4 Mar 2009 00:59:35 +0000 (00:59 +0000)
commit81777847f4e745f75504ae1767d49f0711e56b1b
tree482e59ca6aa8de025411c9de22a0b402fc0c07d6
parentda6e2ddf0ea1449b725e0ab9c3a31444e1668613
Thanks to Krzysztof Kotlenga <pocek@users.sf.net>:
 Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:

> Anyway, appending the 0 byte is no good as tar_entry->name[100] is
> already out of bounds.

http://tiny.cc/964UD looks good enough. It's interesting that we have
to trace bugs already fixed upstream years ago.

http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2009-March/008510.html

git-svn-id: http://opkg.googlecode.com/svn/trunk@203 e8e0d7a0-c8d9-11dd-a880-a1081c7ac358
libbb/unarchive.c