From: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com>,
Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>,
"brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] refs: make sure we never pass NULL to hashcpy
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 09:26:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMy9T_ED1KBqkE9GCHrOrt0frnYAx1vka7Xx1DrXmjJBNNKahw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqh8wgaa7s.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> gcc on arch linux (version 7.1.1) warns that a NULL argument is passed
>> as the second parameter of memcpy.
>> [...]
>
> It is hugely annoying to see a halfway-intelligent compiler forces
> you to add such pointless asserts.
>
> The only way the compiler could error on this is by inferring the
> fact that new_sha1/old_sha1 could be NULL by looking at the callsite
> in ref_transaction_update() where these are used as conditionals to
> set HAVE_NEW/HAVE_OLD that are passed. Even if the compiler were
> doing the whole-program analysis, the other two callsites of the
> function pass the address of oid.hash[] in an oid structure so it
> should know these won't be NULL.
>
> [...]
>
> I wonder if REF_HAVE_NEW/REF_HAVE_OLD are really needed in these
> codepaths, though. Perhaps we can instead declare !!new_sha1 means
> we have the new side and rewrite the above part to
>
> if (new_sha1)
> hashcpy(update->new_oid.hash, new_sha1);
>
> without an extra and totally pointless assert()?
The ultimate reason for those flags is that `struct ref_update` embeds
`new_oid` and `old_oid` directly in the struct, so there is no way to
set it to "NULL". (The `is_null_sha1` value is used for a different
purpose.) So those flags keep track of whether the corresponding value
is specified or absent.
Four of the five callers of `ref_transaction_add_update()` are
constructing a new `ref_update` from an old one. They currently don't
have to look into `flags`; they just pass it on (possibly changing a
bit or two). Implementing your proposal would oblige those callers to
change from something like
> new_update = ref_transaction_add_update(
> transaction, "HEAD",
> update->flags | REF_LOG_ONLY | REF_NODEREF,
> update->new_oid.hash, update->old_oid.hash,
> update->msg);
to
> new_update = ref_transaction_add_update(
> transaction, "HEAD",
> update->flags | REF_LOG_ONLY | REF_NODEREF,
> (update->flags & REF_HAVE_NEW) ? update->new_oid.hash : NULL,
> (update->flags & REF_HAVE_OLD) ? update->old_oid.hash : NULL,
> update->msg);
It's not the end of the world, but it's annoying.
`ref_transaction_add_update()` was meant to be a low-level,
low-overhead way of allocating a `struct ref_update` and add it to a
transaction.
Another solution (also annoying, but maybe a tad less so) would be to
change the one iffy caller, `ref_transaction_update()`, to pass in a
pointer to the null OID for `new_sha1` and `old_sha1` when the
corresponding flags are turned off. That value would never be looked
at, but it would hopefully reassure gcc.
I did just realize one thing: `ref_transaction_update()` takes `flags`
as an argument and alters it using
> flags |= (new_sha1 ? REF_HAVE_NEW : 0) | (old_sha1 ? REF_HAVE_OLD : 0);
Perhaps gcc is *more* intelligent than we give it credit for, and is
actually worried that the `flags` argument passed in by the caller
might *already* have one of these bits set. In that case
`ref_transaction_add_update()` would indeed be called incorrectly.
Does the warning go away if you change that line to
> if (new_sha1)
> flags |=REF_HAVE_NEW;
> else
> flags &= ~REF_HAVE_NEW;
> if (old_sha1)
> flags |=REF_HAVE_OLD;
> else
> flags &= ~REF_HAVE_OLD;
? 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 */
Michael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-07 7:26 UTC|newest]
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 [this message]
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
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
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=CAMy9T_ED1KBqkE9GCHrOrt0frnYAx1vka7Xx1DrXmjJBNNKahw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=mhagger@alum.mit.edu \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx \
--cc=t.gummerer@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.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
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 read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).