From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F564B3 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2023 16:58:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 5105 invoked by uid 109); 12 Dec 2023 00:58:08 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 00:58:08 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 8721 invoked by uid 111); 12 Dec 2023 00:58:07 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 11 Dec 2023 19:58:07 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2023 19:58:07 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Carlos =?utf-8?B?QW5kcsOpcyBSYW3DrXJleiBDYXRhw7Fv?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] config: handle NULL value when parsing non-bools Message-ID: <20231212005807.GC376323@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20231207071030.GA1275835@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20231207071114.GA1276005@coredump.intra.peff.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 09:14:42AM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > if (!strcmp(k, "uploadpack.blobpackfileuri")) { > [...] > This isn't part of the diff and not a new issue, but why don't we > `return 0` when parsing this config correctly? We fall through to > `git_default_config()` even if we've successfully parsed the config key, > which seems like a bug to me. I don't think it's a functional bug, but merely a pessimization. We can return early if we know we've handled the option, but the rest of the code would simply fail to match it. So we are just wasting a few strcmp calls (and an unknown key already wastes the same number). So I think it is a good practice to return, but not really a bug if we don't. > > if (!strcmp(var, "core.checkstat")) { > > + if (!value) > > + return config_error_nonbool(var); > > if (!strcasecmp(value, "default")) > > check_stat = 1; > > else if (!strcasecmp(value, "minimal")) > > We would ignore `true` here, so should we ignore implicit `true`, as > well? IMHO the lack of a final "else" in the strcasecmp if-cascade is a bug (and I sent a fix as part of the "config fixes on top" series). Even if we want to leave it for historical reasons, I think it's still worth returning an error for the NULL case (since we know it would have segfaulted previously). (I snipped the rest of your mail, as I think my response to the cover letter covers the general discussion). -Peff