Re: [PATCH] tree-walk: don't parse incorrect entries

[mkoegler@auto.tuwien.ac.at (Martin Koegler)]

On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 12:50:28PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Martin Koegler <mkoegler@auto.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
> > * The start of the path may not be after the last zero (21 bytes before the end).
> 
> How can that be possible?
> 
>  - you know end points at NUL and buf < end;
> 
>  - get_mode() starts scanning from buf, stops at the first SP if
>    returns a non NULL pointer; anything non octal digit before
>    it sees that SP results in a NULL return;
> 
>  - the return value of get_mode() is the beginning of the path.
> 
> The second point above means when get_mode() scans buf, it would
> never go beyond end which you already made sure is NUL (which is
> not SP and not an octal digit).  If it hits end, you would get NULL
> pointer back, wouldn't you?

Yes, I agree with you.

> Rejecting an empty path may be sensible (i.e. checking "!*path"
> instead), though.

I sent a new patch with both changes.

mfg Martin Kögler