From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
To: "Giuseppe Bilotta" <giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gitweb: refactor input parameters parse/validation
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 16:39:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200810071639.25324.jnareb@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cb7bb73a0810070542v4c8a9820x4d91ea20597ddf01@mail.gmail.com>
Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
>>> + # find which part of PATH_INFO is project
>>> + my $project = $path_info;
>>
>> Hmmm... now $project is local (lexically) here.
>
> Yes, itt's only used temporarily here, to see if a proper $project
> can be defined. It gets redefined outside. It just made sense to name
> it like this 8-)
Well, if $project is local in evaluate_path_info(), so could be
$path_info...
>>> + $project =~ s,/+$,,;
>>> + while ($project && !check_head_link("$projectroot/$project")) {
>>> + $project =~ s,/*[^/]*$,,;
>>> + }
>>> + # validate project
>>> + $project = validate_project($project);
>>
>> I'm not sure if it is worth worrying over, but I think you repeat
>> check_head_link() check here.
>>
>> [After examining code further]. But I think you do double validation;
>> once you do it here, and once you do it copying to global variables
>> such as $action or $project, and double checking check_head_link()
>> won't be easy to avoid; fortunately it is cheap filesystem-level check
>> (might be slow only when stat is extremely slow, and is not cached).
>
> I know. This is actually the reason why I had interleaved path_info
> definition and global validation in my previous version of the patch.
> The big issue here is that path_info evaluation _needs_ (partial)
> validation.
>
> A possible alternative could be to only put validated parameters into
> %input_params. This would completely separate the validation for cgi
> and path_info (modulo shared subs).
>
> Of course, the check_head_link would still be repeated inside
> evaluate_path_info, but the other params could skip a double
> validation.
Wouldn't it be simpler and as good solution to just leave validation
off evaluate_path_info() (well, of course except check_head_link() test),
and allow it to be validated when assigning global 'params' variables?
check_head_link() would be repeated for path_info links, but that
should not affect performance much.
--
Jakub Narebski
Poland
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-07 14:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-03 17:19 [PATCH] gitweb: refactor input parameters parse/validation Giuseppe Bilotta
2008-10-07 10:57 ` Jakub Narebski
2008-10-07 12:42 ` Giuseppe Bilotta
2008-10-07 14:39 ` Jakub Narebski [this message]
2008-10-08 9:10 ` Giuseppe Bilotta
2008-10-08 9:45 ` Jakub Narebski
2008-10-08 9:26 ` [PATCHv2] " Giuseppe Bilotta
2008-10-10 8:37 ` Jakub Narebski
2008-10-10 15:01 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2008-10-10 17:33 ` Giuseppe Bilotta
2008-10-10 18:42 ` [PATCHv3] " Giuseppe Bilotta
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200810071639.25324.jnareb@gmail.com \
--to=jnareb@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com \
--cc=spearce@spearce.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).