From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] apply: reject input that touches outside $cwd Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 16:24:50 -0500 Message-ID: <20150203212450.GC20594@peff.net> References: <1422919650-13346-1-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> <1422919650-13346-2-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> <20150203005005.GB31946@peff.net> <20150203210140.GA20594@peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 03 22:25:07 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YIky2-0004aM-At for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 22:25:06 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161189AbbBCVYz (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Feb 2015 16:24:55 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:44813 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1161164AbbBCVYw (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Feb 2015 16:24:52 -0500 Received: (qmail 16031 invoked by uid 102); 3 Feb 2015 21:24:52 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 15:24:52 -0600 Received: (qmail 14521 invoked by uid 107); 3 Feb 2015 21:24:52 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 16:24:52 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 03 Feb 2015 16:24:50 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 01:23:15PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > Right, I do not think these tests will _fail_ when the filesystem does > > not support symlinks. But nor are they actually testing anything > > interesting. They would pass on such a system even without your patch, > > as we would fail to apply even the symlink creation part of the patch. > > I thought we write out the contents of the symbolic link as a > regular file on such a filesystem, and as long as we do not expect > "test -h expected-to-be-symlink-we-just-created" to succeed we would > be fine. But wouldn't we still fail writing "foo/bar" at that point if "foo" is a regular file (again, we should never do this, but that is the point of the test). -Peff