From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-b5-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b5-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D5CC228CB0 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 05:12:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.156 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761282783; cv=none; b=Dtq9QDxG7W/6W2zVXD9aXtIA3pTAqs6bZpJwiVRiCDxt6nJVRdpdf2hoLAhOkAPtqbF8FljZfBGlspnFnDtjumutEVw+9zG1G5IYRPJbcrqvQdGAB8YqUoei9ADQ8mXZE877oFJ+AHz7jGYI5PoT8krjaYKOV9hczTDcOJQ8QsU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761282783; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QJAtLOOeIjdEBnCt5lO2Gma9kp/qk0aTqL9DWTgMjJE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Njujf8QMP795XXVW/j1lqCSG1EcpX4p1IA4qyf0Oh/2Qwq8VhX1dE9NkU9vIrK6VNr6huDJr0yVULzrwuOQa06a+bHYlbo6E0Pww3wr40mHGdmusNGZjOzYd8HxmNq56dHUsPs6SQhpqZAOUD582WOyYspLictohZDyfApiXw+8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b=oXfQZsjv; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=QNxwMC4P; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.156 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b="oXfQZsjv"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="QNxwMC4P" Received: from phl-compute-04.internal (phl-compute-04.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 494C77A0139; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 01:12:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-01 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-04.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 24 Oct 2025 01:12:58 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pks.im; h=cc:cc :content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1761282778; x=1761369178; bh=NWJDVjiZes 6v9y1Es0b9jcKWqJuJNBaSlvCvJ7s64ns=; b=oXfQZsjvrLJViLP/TWHlwtPyKt Fbk0BbNArPkGSJoUoJExWW0pFwBZL5ilgAxPpzitu/yvKOfX0Q2IX3a7ivmnyD2r rOhSLhTlpI3YcGbKD3nBzEnVWU5Hj9/4p33G8jTnB3v1kVXB0WVYP78ILzo0d3uy kSxXLFD6bwT1+16dWPUcedsopIwsMIKK5B0QKzCJWJYFYiOtIkYhCoyidTedwXYs 6z2Vxb1Pa5bdi8jMNxRmZJE/Yz/axkPyrlRZVTbcS/VCwM1ydz0hHyUJ4I9FgyKZ jxHseesfrCw8VrBTZxI0F2KwTirzeSseoJNNWKtRgcBjusx7R/8bOxR/6I7Q== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1761282778; x=1761369178; bh=NWJDVjiZes6v9y1Es0b9jcKWqJuJNBaSlvC vJ7s64ns=; b=QNxwMC4PQRgB9S/kSD6GgiTCGa3z9rj3tiCRpoP6pATcnFk0FsX kW1tfDkK9PDR7+UeA2bquLGsNJBMFRuMyJ0+408BrEH1n2hQ42koAaD5dIyOmDdH nDocdVDGb4DGh88+KBY7LabtjlPEiSwLPfYLsH6r0MnkASib7H/OEGKyDV19gHMQ 7gFqpEzNeV1pV+ThY7sRWwesrde1Pvz1976Joe6Tstc97hV9+Y0UZxp2J8uoXnbv rdY8ku3yHdgEKg3Qw+NGaPZZVDqFv2ZP7pSvfOpCCNrEHV1ZwwudSROh/xbezCS3 3mLp3CbNyFcfyZd6IeN6n/+kPfxss7whEgA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdeggddugeekgeejucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesthdtredttddtvdenucfhrhhomheprfgrthhrihgt khcuufhtvghinhhhrghrughtuceophhssehpkhhsrdhimheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnh epveekkeffhfeitdeludeigfejtdetvdelvdduhefgueegudfghfeukefhjedvkedtnecu vehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepphhssehpkh hsrdhimhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepiedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthht ohepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehjlhhtohgslhgvrh esghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehmvgesthhtrgihlhhorhhrrdgtohhmpdhr tghpthhtohepkhhrihhsthhofhhfvghrhhgruhhgshgsrghkkhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrd gtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepkhgrrhhthhhikhdrudekkeesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgt phhtthhopehgihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i197146af:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 01:12:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 3ea880af (TLSv1.3:TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256:256:NO); Fri, 24 Oct 2025 05:12:54 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 07:12:51 +0200 From: Patrick Steinhardt To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Kristoffer Haugsbakk , Karthik Nayak , Taylor Blau , Justin Tobler Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/14] refs: improvements and fixes for peeling tags Message-ID: References: <20251007-b4-pks-ref-filter-skip-parsing-objects-v1-0-916cc7c6886b@pks.im> <20251023-b4-pks-ref-filter-skip-parsing-objects-v4-0-2be68ce82c9a@pks.im> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 04:06:01PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Patrick Steinhardt writes: > > I'm not particularly fond of the patches 11 to 13. It feels more like > > playing whack-a-mole, and I very much assume that there still are edge > > cases where we should properly verify the tagged object type. But > > changing it in `parse_tag_buffer()` itself causes a bunch of tests to > > fail where we intentionally create such corrupted tags. So I didn't > > really dare to touch that part, to be honest. > > > > If anybody has suggestions for an alternative approach I'd be very open > > to it. > > Are you still ;-), or are we ready to declare victory for now and > mark the topic for 'next'? It seems that another topic depends on > this and the topic itself is a good shape enough to advance. Yes and no. I still think that this is playing whack-a-mole, and I'm not particularly happy about that. But nobody else had a better suggestion, and I don't see any downside with merging the current approach. So let's merge it down. Thanks! Patrick