From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Adam Spiers <git@adamspiers.org>
Cc: git list <git@vger.kernel.org>,
Zoltan Klinger <zoltan.klinger@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] check-ignore.c: fix segfault with '.' argument from repo root
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:54:10 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7v1ucc6vgd.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1361282783-1413-2-git-send-email-git@adamspiers.org> (Adam Spiers's message of "Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:06:23 +0000")
Adam Spiers <git@adamspiers.org> writes:
> Fix a corner case where check-ignore would segfault when run with the
> '.' argument from the top level of a repository, due to prefix_path()
> converting '.' into the empty string. It doesn't make much sense to
> call check-ignore from the top level with '.' as a parameter, since
> the top-level directory would never typically be ignored, but of
> course it should not segfault in this case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Adam Spiers <git@adamspiers.org>
> ---
Please step back a bit and explain why the original had check for
path[0] in the first place?
If the answer is "the code wanted to special case the question 'is
the top-level excluded?', but used a wrong variable to implement the
check, and this patch is a fix to that", then the proposed commit
log message looks incomplete. The cause of the segv is not that
prefix_path() returns an empty string, but because the function
called inside the "if" block was written without expecting to be fed
the path that refers to the top-level of the working tree, no?
While this change certainly will prevent the "check the top-level"
request to last-exclude-matching-path, I have to wonder if it is a
good idea to force the caller of the l-e-m-p function to even care.
In other words, would it be a cleaner approach to fix the l-e-m-p
function so that the caller can ask "check the top-level" and give a
sensible answer (perhaps the answer may be "nothing matches"), and
remove the "&& path[0]" (or "&& full_path[0]") special case from
this call site?
The last sentence "It doesn't make much sense..." in the proposed
log message would become a good justification for such a special
case at the beginning of l-e-m-p function, I would think.
> builtin/check-ignore.c | 2 +-
> t/t0008-ignores.sh | 5 +++++
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/check-ignore.c b/builtin/check-ignore.c
> index 709535c..b0dd7c2 100644
> --- a/builtin/check-ignore.c
> +++ b/builtin/check-ignore.c
> @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ static int check_ignore(const char *prefix, const char **pathspec)
> ? strlen(prefix) : 0, path);
> full_path = check_path_for_gitlink(full_path);
> die_if_path_beyond_symlink(full_path, prefix);
> - if (!seen[i] && path[0]) {
> + if (!seen[i] && full_path[0]) {
> exclude = last_exclude_matching_path(&check, full_path,
> -1, &dtype);
> if (exclude) {
> diff --git a/t/t0008-ignores.sh b/t/t0008-ignores.sh
> index ebe7c70..9c1bde1 100755
> --- a/t/t0008-ignores.sh
> +++ b/t/t0008-ignores.sh
> @@ -138,6 +138,7 @@ test_expect_success 'setup' '
> cat <<-\EOF >.gitignore &&
> one
> ignored-*
> + top-level-dir/
> EOF
> for dir in . a
> do
> @@ -177,6 +178,10 @@ test_expect_success 'setup' '
> #
> # test invalid inputs
>
> +test_expect_success_multi '. corner-case' '' '
> + test_check_ignore . 1
> +'
> +
> test_expect_success_multi 'empty command line' '' '
> test_check_ignore "" 128 &&
> stderr_contains "fatal: no path specified"
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-19 17:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-19 5:24 [BUG] git-check-ignore: Segmentation fault Zoltan Klinger
2013-02-19 13:40 ` Adam Spiers
2013-02-19 14:06 ` [PATCH 1/2] t0008: document test_expect_success_multi Adam Spiers
2013-02-19 14:06 ` [PATCH 2/2] check-ignore.c: fix segfault with '.' argument from repo root Adam Spiers
2013-02-19 17:54 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2013-02-19 19:07 ` Adam Spiers
2013-02-19 19:21 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] check-ignore.c, dir.c: " Adam Spiers
2013-02-19 19:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-02-19 22:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-02-20 1:57 ` Adam Spiers
2013-02-20 2:47 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-02-20 12:43 ` Adam Spiers
2013-02-20 1:30 ` Adam Spiers
2013-02-19 19:56 ` Re* [PATCH 2/2] check-ignore.c: " Junio C Hamano
2013-02-20 2:00 ` Adam Spiers
2013-02-20 2:53 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-02-20 10:47 ` Adam Spiers
2013-02-21 20:15 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-02-21 20:17 ` [PATCH 1/2] format-patch: rename "no_inline" field Junio C Hamano
2013-02-21 20:26 ` [PATCH 2/2] format-patch: --inline-single Junio C Hamano
2013-02-21 23:13 ` Jeff King
2013-02-21 23:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-02-21 23:47 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-02-22 15:32 ` Adam Spiers
2013-02-22 16:47 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-02-22 17:23 ` Jeff King
2013-02-19 17:37 ` [PATCH 1/2] t0008: document test_expect_success_multi Junio C Hamano
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=7v1ucc6vgd.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=git@adamspiers.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zoltan.klinger@gmail.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).