From: Alexander Potashev <aspotashev@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] builtin-apply: prevent non-explicit permission changes
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 16:37:51 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090102133751.GA31789@myhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7v3ag2frv8.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
On 16:56 Thu 01 Jan , Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Alexander Potashev <aspotashev@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On 05:00 Thu 01 Jan , Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> Alexander Potashev <aspotashev@gmail.com> writes:
> > ...
> >> > @@ -2447,6 +2447,7 @@ static int check_preimage(struct patch *patch, struct cache_entry **ce, struct s
> >> > if (st_mode != patch->old_mode)
> >> > fprintf(stderr, "warning: %s has type %o, expected %o\n",
> >> > old_name, st_mode, patch->old_mode);
> >> > + patch->new_mode = st_mode;
> >>
> >> Can you do this unconditionally, overwriting whatever we read from the
> >> patch header metainfo lines?
> >
> > Do you mean overwriting of 'patch->new_mode' right after patch parsing?
>
> My question was if we should assign st_mode to new_mode _unconditionally_
> here, even when patch->new_mode has already been read from the explicit
> mode change line (i.e. "new mode ", line not "index "line) of the patch
> input.
>
> The call-chain of the program looks like this:
>
> -> apply_patch()
> -> parse_chunk()
> -> find_header()
> * initialize new_mode and old_mode to 0
> -> parse_git_header()
> * set new_mode and old_mode from the patch metainfo, i.e.
> "new mode", "old mode" and "index" lines.
> -> parse_single_patch()
> -> check_patch_list()
> -> check_patch()
> -> check_preimage()
> * make sure there is no local mods
> * warn if old_mode read from the patch (i.e. the preimage file
> the patch submitter used to prepare the patch against) does not
> match what we have
> * warn about mode inconsistency (e.g. the patch submitter thinks
> the mode should be 0644 but our tree has 0755).
> -> apply_data()
> -> write_out_results()
> -> write_out_one_result(0)
> * delete old
> -> write_out_one_result(1)
> * create new
>
> Currently the mode 100644 on the "index" line in a patch is handled
> exactly in the same way as having "old mode 100644" and "new mode 100644"
> lines in the metainfo. The patch submitter claims to have started from
> 100644 and he claims that he wants to have 100644 as the result. That is
> why there is a warning in check_patch().
>
> If we stop reading the new mode from the "index" line (but we still read
> "old_mode" there) without any other change you made in your patch, what
> breaks (i.e. without the patch->new_mode assignment hunk)? I haven't
> followed the codepath too closely, and I suspect you found some cases
> where new_mode stays 0 as initialized, and that may be the reason you have
> this assignment.
>
> But the assignment being unconditional bothered me a lot.
>
> I tend to agree that the current "The final mode bits I want to have on
> this path is this" semantics we give to the "index" line is much less
> useful and less sane and it is a good idea to redefine it as "FYI, the
> copy I made this patch against had this mode bits. I do not intend to
> change the mode bits of the path with this patch."
>
> builtin-apply.c | 4 +++-
> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git c/builtin-apply.c w/builtin-apply.c
> index 07244b0..a8f75ed 100644
> --- c/builtin-apply.c
> +++ w/builtin-apply.c
> @@ -630,7 +630,7 @@ static int gitdiff_index(const char *line, struct patch *patch)
> memcpy(patch->new_sha1_prefix, line, len);
> patch->new_sha1_prefix[len] = 0;
> if (*ptr == ' ')
> - patch->new_mode = patch->old_mode = strtoul(ptr+1, NULL, 8);
> + patch->old_mode = strtoul(ptr+1, NULL, 8);
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -2447,6 +2447,8 @@ static int check_preimage(struct patch *patch, struct cache_entry **ce, struct s
> if (st_mode != patch->old_mode)
> fprintf(stderr, "warning: %s has type %o, expected %o\n",
> old_name, st_mode, patch->old_mode);
> + if (!patch->new_mode)
> + patch->new_mode = st_mode;
This is a _major_ fix, with my patch it would never change any
permissions at all.
I couldn't fully understand that problem last night, sorry for the
noise.
> return 0;
>
> is_new:
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-02 13:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-30 23:53 [RFC PATCH] builtin-apply: prevent non-explicit permission changes Alexander Potashev
2009-01-01 13:00 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-01-01 22:17 ` Alexander Potashev
2009-01-02 0:56 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-01-02 13:37 ` Alexander Potashev [this message]
2009-01-02 10:55 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-01-02 17:35 ` Jeff King
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=20090102133751.GA31789@myhost \
--to=aspotashev@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/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).