git@vger.kernel.org mailing list mirror (one of many)
 help / Atom feed
From: Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com>
To: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] refs: strip out not allowed flags from ref_transaction_update
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 21:45:41 +0100
Message-ID: <20170924204541.GA2853@hank> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4ae6cb35-ecf4-e2a2-302d-95e1442cf101@alum.mit.edu>

On 09/21, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> On 09/13/2017 12:59 AM, Thomas Gummerer wrote:
> > Callers are only allowed to pass certain flags into
> > ref_transaction_update, other flags are internal to it.  To prevent
> > mistakes from the callers, strip the internal only flags out before
> > continuing.
> > 
> > This was noticed because of a compiler warning gcc 7.1.1 issued about
> > passing a NULL parameter as second parameter to memcpy (through
> > hashcpy):
> > 
> > In file included from refs.c:5:0:
> > refs.c: In function ‘ref_transaction_verify’:
> > cache.h:948:2: error: argument 2 null where non-null expected [-Werror=nonnull]
> >   memcpy(sha_dst, sha_src, GIT_SHA1_RAWSZ);
> >   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > In file included from git-compat-util.h:165:0,
> >                  from cache.h:4,
> >                  from refs.c:5:
> > /usr/include/string.h:43:14: note: in a call to function ‘memcpy’ declared here
> >  extern void *memcpy (void *__restrict __dest, const void *__restrict __src,
> >               ^~~~~~
> > 
> > The call to hascpy in ref_transaction_add_update is protected by the
> 
> s/hascpy/hashcpy/

Argh thanks, good catch.  I see Junio got my original version already
in next, so I guess fixing it now is not really an option anymore :(

> > passed in flags, but as we only add flags there, gcc notices
> > REF_HAVE_NEW or REF_HAVE_OLD flags could be passed in from the outside,
> > which would potentially result in passing in NULL as second parameter to
> > memcpy.
> > 
> > Fix both the compiler warning, and make the interface safer for its
> > users by stripping the internal flags out.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > 
> >> This might be a nice change to have anyway, to isolate
> >> `ref_transaction_update()` from mistakes by its callers. For that
> >> matter, one might want to be even more selective about what bits are
> >> allowed in the `flags` argument to `ref_transaction_update()`'s
> >> callers:
> >>
> >>>         flags &= REF_ALLOWED_FLAGS; /* value would need to be determined */
> > 
> > Here's my attempt at doing this.
> > 
> > The odd flag out as the flag that's advertised as internal but can't
> > stripped out is REF_ISPRUNING.  REF_ISPRUNING is passed in as argument
> > to 'ref_transaction_delete()' in 'prune_ref()'.
> > 
> > Maybe this flag should be public, or maybe I'm missing something here?
> > Having only this internal flags as part of the allowed flags feels a
> > bit ugly, but I'm also unfamiliar with the refs code, hence the RFC.
> > If someone has more suggestions they would be very welcome :)
> 
> I wouldn't worry too much about this anomaly. `REF_ISPRUNING` is an ugly
> internal kludge, but allowing it in the mask doesn't make anything worse.

Makes sense, thanks!

> >  refs.c | 2 ++
> >  refs.h | 8 ++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/refs.c b/refs.c
> > index ba22f4acef..fad61be1da 100644
> > --- a/refs.c
> > +++ b/refs.c
> > @@ -921,6 +921,8 @@ int ref_transaction_update(struct ref_transaction *transaction,
> >  		return -1;
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	flags &= REF_TRANSACTION_UPDATE_ALLOWED_FLAGS;
> > +
> 
> I would advocate considering it a bug if the caller passes in options
> that we are going to ignore anyway:
> 
>         if (flags & ~REF_TRANSACTION_UPDATE_ALLOWED_FLAGS)
>                 BUG("illegal flags %x in ref_transaction_update", flags);
> 
> Would this also squelch the compiler warning?

I thought about this, and I agree that it would be nicer to do this
way.  However unfortunately the compiler is not smart enough to
realize that this is gives the same guarantees as stripping the flags
out, and thus still emits the warning.  This is why I went with just
stripping them out.

I'm not sure if it's worth additionally adding this check?  I think it
would read a bit weirdly to check whether the flags are there and to
then "strip" them out when we already know they are not there.

> >  	flags |= (new_sha1 ? REF_HAVE_NEW : 0) | (old_sha1 ? REF_HAVE_OLD : 0);
> >  
> >  	ref_transaction_add_update(transaction, refname, flags,
> > diff --git a/refs.h b/refs.h
> > index 6daa78eb50..4d75c207e1 100644
> > --- a/refs.h
> > +++ b/refs.h
> > @@ -354,6 +354,14 @@ int refs_pack_refs(struct ref_store *refs, unsigned int flags);
> >  #define REF_NODEREF	0x01
> >  #define REF_FORCE_CREATE_REFLOG 0x40
> >  
> > +/*
> > + * Flags that can be passed in to ref_transaction_update
> > + */
> > +#define REF_TRANSACTION_UPDATE_ALLOWED_FLAGS \
> > +	REF_ISPRUNING |                      \
> > +	REF_FORCE_CREATE_REFLOG |            \
> > +	REF_NODEREF
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * Setup reflog before using. Fill in err and return -1 on failure.
> >   */
> > 
> 
> Thanks for working on this.

Thanks for the review!

> Michael

      parent reply index

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-09-04 20:05 [PATCH] refs: make sure we never pass NULL to hashcpy Thomas Gummerer
2017-09-06  1:26 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-09-06 20:32   ` Thomas Gummerer
2017-09-07  7:26   ` Michael Haggerty
2017-09-07 20:39     ` Thomas Gummerer
2017-09-08  0:46     ` Junio C Hamano
2017-09-08 15:08       ` Michael Haggerty
2017-09-08 17:15         ` Junio C Hamano
2017-09-12 22:59     ` [RFC v2] refs: strip out not allowed flags from ref_transaction_update Thomas Gummerer
2017-09-21  8:40       ` Michael Haggerty
2017-09-22  4:23         ` Junio C Hamano
2017-09-24 20:45         ` Thomas Gummerer [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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

  List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170924204541.GA2853@hank \
    --to=t.gummerer@gmail.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=mhagger@alum.mit.edu \
    /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

git@vger.kernel.org mailing list mirror (one of many)

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://public-inbox.org/git
	git clone --mirror http://ou63pmih66umazou.onion/git
	git clone --mirror http://czquwvybam4bgbro.onion/git
	git clone --mirror http://hjrcffqmbrq6wope.onion/git

Newsgroups are available over NNTP:
	nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://ou63pmih66umazou.onion/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://czquwvybam4bgbro.onion/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://hjrcffqmbrq6wope.onion/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

 note: .onion URLs require Tor: https://www.torproject.org/
       or Tor2web: https://www.tor2web.org/

AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox