[PATCH] negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec

[PATCH] negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec

[Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget]

From: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>

Previously, if remote.origin.push was set to ":",
git would segfault during a push operation, due to bad
parsing logic in query_matches_negative_refspec. Per
bisect, the bug was introduced in:
c0192df630 (refspec: add support for negative refspecs, 2020-09-30)

Added testing for this case in fetch-negative-refspec

Signed-off-by: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>
---
    negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec
    
    Previously, if remote.origin.push was set to ":", git would segfault
    during a push operation, due to bad parsing logic in
    query_matches_negative_refspec. Per bisect, the bug was introduced in:
    c0192df630 (refspec: add support for negative refspecs, 2020-09-30)
    
    We found this issue when rolling out git 2.29 at Dropbox - as several
    folks had "push = :" in their configuration. I based my diff off the
    master branch, but also confirmed that it patches cleanly onto maint -
    if the maintainers would like to also fix the segfault on 2.29

Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-820%2Fnipunn1313%2Fnk%2Fpush-refspec-segfault-v1
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-820/nipunn1313/nk/push-refspec-segfault-v1
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/820

 remote.c                          |  5 ++---
 t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh | 10 ++++++++++
 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
index 9f2450cb51b..8ab8d25294c 100644
--- a/remote.c
+++ b/remote.c
@@ -751,9 +751,8 @@ static int query_matches_negative_refspec(struct refspec *rs, struct refspec_ite
 
 			if (match_name_with_pattern(key, needle, value, &expn_name))
 				string_list_append_nodup(&reversed, expn_name);
-		} else {
-			if (!strcmp(needle, refspec->src))
-				string_list_append(&reversed, refspec->src);
+		} else if (refspec->src != NULL && !strcmp(needle, refspec->src)) {
+			string_list_append(&reversed, refspec->src);
 		}
 	}
 
diff --git a/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh b/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
index 8c61e28fec8..4960378e0b7 100755
--- a/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
+++ b/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
@@ -186,4 +186,14 @@ test_expect_success "fetch --prune with negative refspec" '
 	)
 '
 
+test_expect_success "push with empty refspec" '
+	(
+		cd two &&
+		git config remote.one.push : &&
+		# Fails w/ tip behind counterpart - but should not segfault
+		test_must_fail git push one master &&
+		git config --unset remote.one.push
+	)
+'
+
 test_done

base-commit: 6d3ef5b467eccd2769f1aa1c555d317d3c8dc707
-- 
gitgitgadget

Re: [PATCH] negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec

[Junio C Hamano]

"Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:

> From: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>
>
> Previously, if remote.origin.push was set to ":",
> git would segfault during a push operation, due to bad
> parsing logic in query_matches_negative_refspec. Per
> bisect, the bug was introduced in:
> c0192df630 (refspec: add support for negative refspecs, 2020-09-30)
>
> Added testing for this case in fetch-negative-refspec

Thanks.

Our local convention in this project is to write about the
status-quo without the patch under discussion in the present tense,
and describe the fix as if we are giving orders to the codebase to
become like so (or giving orders to the monkeys sitting in front of
the keyboard to update the code).  I'd explain the "problem
description" part of the above perhaps like so:

	The logic added to check for negative pathspec match by
	c0192df630 (refspec: add support for negative refspecs,
	2020-09-30) looks at refspec->src assuming it never is NULL,
	but when remote.origin.push is set to ":" (i.e. "matching"),
	refspec->src is NULL, causing a segfauilt.
	
But stepping back a bit, a "matching" push is saying "if we have
branch 'hello', and they also have branch 'hello', push ours to
theirs".  So if the query is asking about 'hello' (e.g. needle is
'hello'), shouldn't a refspec ":" have the same effect as a refspec
"hello:hello", instead of getting ignored like this patch does?

Original author of the feature (Jacob) cc'ed for insight.

 - Can we have refspec->src==NULL in cases other than where
   refspec->matching is true?  If not, then perhaps the patch should
   insert, before the problematic "else if" clause, something like

		if (match_name_with_pattern(...))
			string_list_append_nodup(...);
   +	} else if (refspec->matching) {
   +		... behaviour for the matching case ...
   +	} else if (refspec->src == NULL) {
   +		BUG("refspec->src cannot be null here");
	} else {
		if (!strcmp(needle, refspec->src))

 - We'd need to decide if ignoring is the right behaviour for the
   matching refspec.  I do not recall what we decided the logic of
   the function should be offhand.

>     We found this issue when rolling out git 2.29 at Dropbox - as several
>     folks had "push = :" in their configuration. I based my diff off the
>     master branch, but also confirmed that it patches cleanly onto maint -
>     if the maintainers would like to also fix the segfault on 2.29

Yes, it is very much appreciated you were considerate to base the
patch on the maintenance track.  We want the code to do with the
right thing with ":" matching refspec.

> diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
> index 9f2450cb51b..8ab8d25294c 100644
> --- a/remote.c
> +++ b/remote.c
> @@ -751,9 +751,8 @@ static int query_matches_negative_refspec(struct refspec *rs, struct refspec_ite
>  
>  			if (match_name_with_pattern(key, needle, value, &expn_name))
>  				string_list_append_nodup(&reversed, expn_name);
> -		} else {
> -			if (!strcmp(needle, refspec->src))
> -				string_list_append(&reversed, refspec->src);
> +		} else if (refspec->src != NULL && !strcmp(needle, refspec->src)) {
> +			string_list_append(&reversed, refspec->src);
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> diff --git a/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh b/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
> index 8c61e28fec8..4960378e0b7 100755
> --- a/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
> +++ b/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
> @@ -186,4 +186,14 @@ test_expect_success "fetch --prune with negative refspec" '
>  	)
>  '
>  
> +test_expect_success "push with empty refspec" '

s/empty/matching/ (see "git push --help" and look for "The special
refspec :").

> +	(
> +		cd two &&
> +		git config remote.one.push : &&
> +		# Fails w/ tip behind counterpart - but should not segfault
> +		test_must_fail git push one master &&
> +		git config --unset remote.one.push
> +	)
> +'
> +
>  test_done
>
> base-commit: 6d3ef5b467eccd2769f1aa1c555d317d3c8dc707

Re: [PATCH] negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec

[Jacob Keller]

On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 10:05 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Original author of the feature (Jacob) cc'ed for insight.
>

Hi,

Sorry I missed this thread last couple months.

>  - Can we have refspec->src==NULL in cases other than where
>    refspec->matching is true?  If not, then perhaps the patch should
>    insert, before the problematic "else if" clause, something like
>
>                 if (match_name_with_pattern(...))
>                         string_list_append_nodup(...);
>    +    } else if (refspec->matching) {
>    +            ... behaviour for the matching case ...
>    +    } else if (refspec->src == NULL) {
>    +            BUG("refspec->src cannot be null here");
>         } else {
>                 if (!strcmp(needle, refspec->src))
>
>  - We'd need to decide if ignoring is the right behaviour for the
>    matching refspec.  I do not recall what we decided the logic of
>    the function should be offhand.
>

Isn't this patch about how we somehow broke ":" on its own, not as a
negative refspec?

[PATCH v2 0/2] negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec

[Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget]

Previously, if remote.origin.push was set to ":", git would segfault during
a push operation, due to bad parsing logic in
query_matches_negative_refspec. Per bisect, the bug was introduced in:
c0192df630 (refspec: add support for negative refspecs, 2020-09-30)

We found this issue when rolling out git 2.29 at Dropbox - as several folks
had "push = :" in their configuration. I based my diff off the master
branch, but also confirmed that it patches cleanly onto maint - if the
maintainers would like to also fix the segfault on 2.29

Update since Patch series V1:

 * Handled matching refspec explicitly
 * Added testing for "+:" case
 * Added comment explaining how the two loops work together

It may be wise to add additional testing for a case with a matching refspec
+ negative refspec with expected behavior

Nipunn Koorapati (2):
  negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec
  negative-refspec: improve comment on query_matches_negative_refspec

 remote.c                          | 16 +++++++++++++---
 t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh | 15 +++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)


base-commit: 6d3ef5b467eccd2769f1aa1c555d317d3c8dc707
Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-820%2Fnipunn1313%2Fnk%2Fpush-refspec-segfault-v2
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-820/nipunn1313/nk/push-refspec-segfault-v2
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/820

Range-diff vs v1:

 1:  743e848653f ! 1:  e42200b644a negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec
     @@ Metadata
       ## Commit message ##
          negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec
      
     -    Previously, if remote.origin.push was set to ":",
     -    git would segfault during a push operation, due to bad
     -    parsing logic in query_matches_negative_refspec. Per
     -    bisect, the bug was introduced in:
     -    c0192df630 (refspec: add support for negative refspecs, 2020-09-30)
     +    The logic added to check for negative pathspec match by c0192df630
     +    (refspec: add support for negative refspecs, 2020-09-30) looks at
     +    refspec->src assuming it is never NULL, however when
     +    remote.origin.push is set to ":", then refspec->src is NULL,
     +    causing a segfault within strcmp
      
          Added testing for this case in fetch-negative-refspec
      
     @@ remote.c: static int query_matches_negative_refspec(struct refspec *rs, struct r
      -		} else {
      -			if (!strcmp(needle, refspec->src))
      -				string_list_append(&reversed, refspec->src);
     -+		} else if (refspec->src != NULL && !strcmp(needle, refspec->src)) {
     ++		} else if (refspec->matching) {
     ++			/* For the special matching refspec, any query should match */
     ++			string_list_append(&reversed, needle);
     ++		} else if (refspec->src == NULL) {
     ++			BUG("refspec->src should not be null here");
     ++		} else if (!strcmp(needle, refspec->src)) {
      +			string_list_append(&reversed, refspec->src);
       		}
       	}
     @@ t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh: test_expect_success "fetch --prune with negat
       	)
       '
       
     -+test_expect_success "push with empty refspec" '
     ++test_expect_success "push with matching ':' refspec" '
      +	(
      +		cd two &&
      +		git config remote.one.push : &&
      +		# Fails w/ tip behind counterpart - but should not segfault
      +		test_must_fail git push one master &&
     ++
     ++		git config remote.one.push +: &&
     ++		# Fails w/ tip behind counterpart - but should not segfault
     ++		test_must_fail git push one master &&
     ++
      +		git config --unset remote.one.push
      +	)
      +'
 -:  ----------- > 2:  8da8d9cd1c5 negative-refspec: improve comment on query_matches_negative_refspec

-- 
gitgitgadget

[PATCH v2 1/2] negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec

[Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget]

From: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>

The logic added to check for negative pathspec match by c0192df630
(refspec: add support for negative refspecs, 2020-09-30) looks at
refspec->src assuming it is never NULL, however when
remote.origin.push is set to ":", then refspec->src is NULL,
causing a segfault within strcmp

Added testing for this case in fetch-negative-refspec

Signed-off-by: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>
---
 remote.c                          | 10 +++++++---
 t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh | 15 +++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
index 9f2450cb51b..cbb3113b105 100644
--- a/remote.c
+++ b/remote.c
@@ -751,9 +751,13 @@ static int query_matches_negative_refspec(struct refspec *rs, struct refspec_ite
 
 			if (match_name_with_pattern(key, needle, value, &expn_name))
 				string_list_append_nodup(&reversed, expn_name);
-		} else {
-			if (!strcmp(needle, refspec->src))
-				string_list_append(&reversed, refspec->src);
+		} else if (refspec->matching) {
+			/* For the special matching refspec, any query should match */
+			string_list_append(&reversed, needle);
+		} else if (refspec->src == NULL) {
+			BUG("refspec->src should not be null here");
+		} else if (!strcmp(needle, refspec->src)) {
+			string_list_append(&reversed, refspec->src);
 		}
 	}
 
diff --git a/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh b/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
index 8c61e28fec8..58b42fabd97 100755
--- a/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
+++ b/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
@@ -186,4 +186,19 @@ test_expect_success "fetch --prune with negative refspec" '
 	)
 '
 
+test_expect_success "push with matching ':' refspec" '
+	(
+		cd two &&
+		git config remote.one.push : &&
+		# Fails w/ tip behind counterpart - but should not segfault
+		test_must_fail git push one master &&
+
+		git config remote.one.push +: &&
+		# Fails w/ tip behind counterpart - but should not segfault
+		test_must_fail git push one master &&
+
+		git config --unset remote.one.push
+	)
+'
+
 test_done
-- 
gitgitgadget

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec

[Eric Sunshine]

On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 5:00 PM Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget
<gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote:
> The logic added to check for negative pathspec match by c0192df630
> (refspec: add support for negative refspecs, 2020-09-30) looks at
> refspec->src assuming it is never NULL, however when
> remote.origin.push is set to ":", then refspec->src is NULL,
> causing a segfault within strcmp
>
> Added testing for this case in fetch-negative-refspec

A couple minor comments below...

> Signed-off-by: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
> @@ -751,9 +751,13 @@ static int query_matches_negative_refspec(struct refspec *rs, struct refspec_ite
> +               } else if (refspec->matching) {
> +                       /* For the special matching refspec, any query should match */
> +                       string_list_append(&reversed, needle);
> +               } else if (refspec->src == NULL) {
> +                       BUG("refspec->src should not be null here");

I realize that you copied Junio's example, but style on this project
is to write this as:

    } else if (!refspec->src) {
        ...

> diff --git a/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh b/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
> @@ -186,4 +186,19 @@ test_expect_success "fetch --prune with negative refspec" '
> +test_expect_success "push with matching ':' refspec" '
> +       (
> +               cd two &&
> +               git config remote.one.push : &&
> +               # Fails w/ tip behind counterpart - but should not segfault
> +               test_must_fail git push one master &&
> +
> +               git config remote.one.push +: &&
> +               # Fails w/ tip behind counterpart - but should not segfault
> +               test_must_fail git push one master &&
> +
> +               git config --unset remote.one.push
> +       )
> +'

If anything in this test fails prior to the final `git config
--unset`, then that cleanup command won't be executed, which might
negatively impact tests which follow. To ensure cleanup whether the
test succeeds or fails, use test_config(). Unfortunately,
test_config() has the limitation that it can't be used in subshells,
so you may have to restructure the test a bit, perhaps like this:

    test_config remote.one.push : &&
    (
        cd two &&
        test_must_fail git push one master &&

        git config remote.one.push +: &&
        test_must_fail git push one master
    )

Driving the test with a for-loop and taking advantage of -C to avoid
the subshell is also an option:

    for v in : +:
    do
        test_config -C two remote.one.push $v &&
        test_must_fail git -C two push one master || return 1
    done

[PATCH v2 2/2] negative-refspec: improve comment on query_matches_negative_refspec

[Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget]

From: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>

Comment did not adequately explain how the two loops work
together to achieve the goal of querying for matching of any
negative refspec.

Signed-off-by: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>
---
 remote.c | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
index cbb3113b105..6cdaa8da75a 100644
--- a/remote.c
+++ b/remote.c
@@ -736,6 +736,12 @@ static int query_matches_negative_refspec(struct refspec *rs, struct refspec_ite
 	 * item uses the destination. To handle this, we apply pattern
 	 * refspecs in reverse to figure out if the query source matches any
 	 * of the negative refspecs.
+	 *
+	 * The first loop finds and expands all positive refspecs
+	 * matched by the queried ref.
+	 *
+	 * The second loop checks if any of the results of the first loop
+	 * match any negative refspec.
 	 */
 	for (i = 0; i < rs->nr; i++) {
 		struct refspec_item *refspec = &rs->items[i];
-- 
gitgitgadget

[PATCH v3 0/3] negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec

[Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget]

If remote.origin.push was set to ":", git segfaults during a push operation,
due to bad parsing logic in query_matches_negative_refspec. Per bisect, the
bug was introduced in: c0192df630 (refspec: add support for negative
refspecs, 2020-09-30)

We found this issue when rolling out git 2.29 at Dropbox - as several folks
had "push = :" in their configuration. I based my diff off the master
branch, but also confirmed that it patches cleanly onto maint - if the
maintainers would like to also fix the segfault on 2.29

Update since Patch series V1:

 * Handled matching refspec explicitly
 * Added testing for "+:" case
 * Added comment explaining how the two loops work together

Update since Patch series V2

 * style suggestion in remote.c
 * Use test_config
 * Add test for a case with a matching refspec + negative refspec
 * Fix test_config to work with --add
 * Updated commit message to describe what git is told to do instead of
   segfaulting

Nipunn Koorapati (3):
  test-lib-functions: handle --add in test_config
  negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec
  negative-refspec: improve comment on query_matches_negative_refspec

 remote.c                          | 16 +++++++++++++---
 t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 t/test-lib-functions.sh           |  9 ++++++++-
 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)


base-commit: 6d3ef5b467eccd2769f1aa1c555d317d3c8dc707
Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-820%2Fnipunn1313%2Fnk%2Fpush-refspec-segfault-v3
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-820/nipunn1313/nk/push-refspec-segfault-v3
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/820

Range-diff vs v2:

 -:  ----------- > 1:  733c674bd19 test-lib-functions: handle --add in test_config
 1:  e42200b644a ! 2:  20cff2f5c59 negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec
     @@ Commit message
          remote.origin.push is set to ":", then refspec->src is NULL,
          causing a segfault within strcmp
      
     -    Added testing for this case in fetch-negative-refspec
     +    Tell git to handle matching refspec by adding the needle to the
     +    set of positively matched refspecs, since matching ":" refspecs
     +    match anything as src.
     +
     +    Added testing for matching refspec pushes fetch-negative-refspec
     +    both individually and in combination with a negative refspec
      
          Signed-off-by: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>
      
     @@ remote.c: static int query_matches_negative_refspec(struct refspec *rs, struct r
      +		} else if (refspec->matching) {
      +			/* For the special matching refspec, any query should match */
      +			string_list_append(&reversed, needle);
     -+		} else if (refspec->src == NULL) {
     ++		} else if (!refspec->src) {
      +			BUG("refspec->src should not be null here");
      +		} else if (!strcmp(needle, refspec->src)) {
      +			string_list_append(&reversed, refspec->src);
     @@ t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh: test_expect_success "fetch --prune with negat
       '
       
      +test_expect_success "push with matching ':' refspec" '
     -+	(
     -+		cd two &&
     -+		git config remote.one.push : &&
     -+		# Fails w/ tip behind counterpart - but should not segfault
     -+		test_must_fail git push one master &&
     ++	test_config -C two remote.one.push : &&
     ++	# Fails w/ tip behind counterpart - but should not segfault
     ++	test_must_fail git -C two push one
     ++'
     ++
     ++test_expect_success "push with matching '+:' refspec" '
     ++	test_config -C two remote.one.push +: &&
     ++	# Fails w/ tip behind counterpart - but should not segfault
     ++	test_must_fail git -C two push one
     ++'
      +
     -+		git config remote.one.push +: &&
     -+		# Fails w/ tip behind counterpart - but should not segfault
     -+		test_must_fail git push one master &&
     ++test_expect_success "push with matching and negative refspec" '
     ++	test_config -C two --add remote.one.push : &&
     ++	# Fails to push master w/ tip behind counterpart
     ++	test_must_fail git -C two push one &&
      +
     -+		git config --unset remote.one.push
     -+	)
     ++	# If master is in negative refspec, then the command will succeed
     ++	test_config -C two --add remote.one.push ^refs/heads/master &&
     ++	git -C two push one
      +'
      +
       test_done
 2:  8da8d9cd1c5 = 3:  0fd4e9f7459 negative-refspec: improve comment on query_matches_negative_refspec

-- 
gitgitgadget

[PATCH v3 1/3] test-lib-functions: handle --add in test_config

[Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget]

From: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>

test_config fails to unset the configuration variable when
using --add, as it tries to run git config --unset-all --add

Tell test_config to invoke test_unconfig with the arg $2 when
the arg $1 is --add

Signed-off-by: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>
---
 t/test-lib-functions.sh | 9 ++++++++-
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/t/test-lib-functions.sh b/t/test-lib-functions.sh
index 999982fe4a9..1fdd7129d51 100644
--- a/t/test-lib-functions.sh
+++ b/t/test-lib-functions.sh
@@ -381,6 +381,7 @@ test_unconfig () {
 		config_dir=$1
 		shift
 	fi
+	echo git ${config_dir:+-C "$config_dir"} config --unset-all "$@"
 	git ${config_dir:+-C "$config_dir"} config --unset-all "$@"
 	config_status=$?
 	case "$config_status" in
@@ -400,7 +401,13 @@ test_config () {
 		config_dir=$1
 		shift
 	fi
-	test_when_finished "test_unconfig ${config_dir:+-C '$config_dir'} '$1'" &&
+
+	first_arg=$1
+	if test "$1" = --add; then
+		first_arg=$2
+	fi
+
+	test_when_finished "test_unconfig ${config_dir:+-C '$config_dir'} '$first_arg'" &&
 	git ${config_dir:+-C "$config_dir"} config "$@"
 }
 
-- 
gitgitgadget

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] test-lib-functions: handle --add in test_config

[Eric Sunshine]

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 9:05 PM Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget
<gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote:
> test_config fails to unset the configuration variable when
> using --add, as it tries to run git config --unset-all --add
>
> Tell test_config to invoke test_unconfig with the arg $2 when
> the arg $1 is --add
>
> Signed-off-by: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/t/test-lib-functions.sh b/t/test-lib-functions.sh
> @@ -381,6 +381,7 @@ test_unconfig () {
>                 config_dir=$1
>                 shift
>         fi
> +       echo git ${config_dir:+-C "$config_dir"} config --unset-all "$@"

Stray debugging gunk?

> @@ -400,7 +401,13 @@ test_config () {
> -       test_when_finished "test_unconfig ${config_dir:+-C '$config_dir'} '$1'" &&
> +
> +       first_arg=$1
> +       if test "$1" = --add; then
> +               first_arg=$2
> +       fi
> +
> +       test_when_finished "test_unconfig ${config_dir:+-C '$config_dir'} '$first_arg'" &&

Several comments...

Style on this project is to place `then` on its own line (as seen a
few lines above this change):

    if test "$1" = --add
    then
        ...

This logic would be easier to understand if the variable was named
`varname` or `cfgvar` (or something), which better conveys intention,
rather than `first_arg`.

It feels odd to single out `--add` when there are other similar
options, such as `--replace-all`, `--fixed-value`, or even `--type`
which people might try using in the future.

This new option parsing is somewhat brittle. If a caller uses
`test_config --add -C <dir> ...`, it won't work as expected. Perhaps
that's not likely to happen, but it would be easy enough to fix by
unifying and generalizing option parsing a bit. Doing so would also
make it easy for the other options mentioned above to be added later
if ever needed. For instance:

    options=
    while test $# != 0
    do
        case "$1" in
        -C)
            config_dir=$2
            shift
            ;;
        --add)
            options="$options $1"
            ;;
        *)
            break
            ;;
        esac
        shift
    done

Finally, as this is a one-off case, it might be simpler just to drop
this patch altogether and open-code the cleanup in the test itself in
patch [2/3] rather than bothering with test_config() in that
particular case. For example:

    test_when_finished "test_unconfig -C two remote.one.push" &&
    git config -C two --add remote.one.push : &&
    test_must_fail git -C two push one &&
    git config -C two --add remote.one.push ^refs/heads/master &&
    git -C two push one

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] test-lib-functions: handle --add in test_config

[Junio C Hamano]

Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:

> Finally, as this is a one-off case, it might be simpler just to drop
> this patch altogether and open-code the cleanup in the test itself in
> patch [2/3] rather than bothering with test_config() in that
> particular case. For example:
>
>     test_when_finished "test_unconfig -C two remote.one.push" &&
>     git config -C two --add remote.one.push : &&
>     test_must_fail git -C two push one &&
>     git config -C two --add remote.one.push ^refs/heads/master &&
>     git -C two push one

That would be my preference, too.  Thanks for carefully and
patiently reviewing.

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] test-lib-functions: handle --add in test_config

[Eric Sunshine]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 2:00 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
> > Finally, as this is a one-off case, it might be simpler just to drop
> > this patch altogether and open-code the cleanup in the test itself in
> > patch [2/3] rather than bothering with test_config() in that
> > particular case. For example:
> >
> >     test_when_finished "test_unconfig -C two remote.one.push" &&
> >     git config -C two --add remote.one.push : &&
> >     test_must_fail git -C two push one &&
> >     git config -C two --add remote.one.push ^refs/heads/master &&
> >     git -C two push one
>
> That would be my preference, too.  Thanks for carefully and
> patiently reviewing.

I forgot to mention that it likely would be a good idea to at least
mention in the commit message why test_config() is not being used for
that particular case. Perhaps saying something along the lines of "one
test handles config cleanup manually since test_config() is not
prepared to take arbitrary options such as --add" -- or something
along those lines -- would be sufficient. Alternatively, an in-code
comment within the test explaining the open-coding might be more
helpful to people reading the code in the future.

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] test-lib-functions: handle --add in test_config

[Nipunn Koorapati]

> I forgot to mention that it likely would be a good idea to at least
> mention in the commit message why test_config() is not being used for
> that particular case. Perhaps saying something along the lines of "one
> test handles config cleanup manually since test_config() is not
> prepared to take arbitrary options such as --add" -- or something
> along those lines -- would be sufficient. Alternatively, an in-code
> comment within the test explaining the open-coding might be more
> helpful to people reading the code in the future.

I found that since test_unconfig uses --unset-all, I can write a test as such

    test_config -C two remote.one.push +: &&
    test_must_fail git -C two push one &&
    git -C two config --add remote.one.push ^refs/heads/master &&
    git -C two push one

The unconfig of the test_config will --unset-all remote.one.push. I can
use this technique and add a comment to that extent.

--Nipunn

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] test-lib-functions: handle --add in test_config

[Eric Sunshine]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 7:00 PM Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn1313@gmail.com> wrote:
> I found that since test_unconfig uses --unset-all, I can write a test as such
>
>     test_config -C two remote.one.push +: &&
>     test_must_fail git -C two push one &&
>     git -C two config --add remote.one.push ^refs/heads/master &&
>     git -C two push one
>
> The unconfig of the test_config will --unset-all remote.one.push. I can
> use this technique and add a comment to that extent.

Yes, you could do that, though it is somewhat subtle and increases
cognitive load since the reader has to reason about it a bit more --
and perhaps study the internal implementation of test_config() -- to
convince himself or herself that the different methods of setting
configuration (test_config() vs. `git config`) used in the same test
is intentional and works as intended.

The example presented earlier, on the other hand, in which cleanup is
explicit via `test_when_finished "test_unconfig ..."` does not suffer
from such increased cognitive load since it uses `git config`
consistently to set configuration rather than a mix of `git config`
and test_config(). This sort of consideration is important not just
for reviewers, but for people who need to understand the code down the
road. For this reason, I think I favor the version in which the
cleanup is explicit. (But that's just my opinion...)

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] test-lib-functions: handle --add in test_config

[Nipunn Koorapati]

> Yes, you could do that, though it is somewhat subtle and increases
> cognitive load since the reader has to reason about it a bit more --
> and perhaps study the internal implementation of test_config() -- to
> convince himself or herself that the different methods of setting
> configuration (test_config() vs. `git config`) used in the same test
> is intentional and works as intended.
>
> The example presented earlier, on the other hand, in which cleanup is
> explicit via `test_when_finished "test_unconfig ..."` does not suffer
> from such increased cognitive load since it uses `git config`
> consistently to set configuration rather than a mix of `git config`
> and test_config(). This sort of consideration is important not just
> for reviewers, but for people who need to understand the code down the
> road. For this reason, I think I favor the version in which the
> cleanup is explicit. (But that's just my opinion...)

Totally sympathize with wanting to reduce the cognitive load of
reading the test suite.
As a reader of the test, I found both implementation choices
nonobvious - and requiring
some diving into test_config and test_unconfig (namely the --unset-all
behavior).
A comment on the `git config` stating that it's there because
`test_config` doesn't yet support
`--add` seems equally clarifying as inserting a comment next to the
test_unconfig usage.
That being said, I suspect anyone in the future poking around with
this will have to sourcedive
through test_config and test_unconfig to make sense of it.

I'll switch it over to the test_unconfig option on the next reroll if requested.

--Nipunn

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] test-lib-functions: handle --add in test_config

[Eric Sunshine]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 9:25 PM Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn1313@gmail.com> wrote:
> That being said, I suspect anyone in the future poking around with
> this will have to sourcedive
> through test_config and test_unconfig to make sense of it.
>
> I'll switch it over to the test_unconfig option on the next reroll if requested.

Indeed, it's not entirely uncommon to have to dig into the test
functions when writing tests. My bigger concern was someone coming
along and thinking that the mixed use of test_config() and manual `git
config` in the same test was a mistake, and want to fix that mistake,
which would lead the person down the same rabbit hole. Explicit
cleanup via test_unconfig() and consistent use of `git config` within
the test, on the other hand, does not look accidental, so the reader
would be less likely to want to "fix the mistake". The comment you
added in the re-roll above the manual cleanup saves the reader the
trouble of having to dive into the implementation of test_config(),
which is a nice bonus.

[PATCH v3 2/3] negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec

[Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget]

From: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>

The logic added to check for negative pathspec match by c0192df630
(refspec: add support for negative refspecs, 2020-09-30) looks at
refspec->src assuming it is never NULL, however when
remote.origin.push is set to ":", then refspec->src is NULL,
causing a segfault within strcmp

Tell git to handle matching refspec by adding the needle to the
set of positively matched refspecs, since matching ":" refspecs
match anything as src.

Added testing for matching refspec pushes fetch-negative-refspec
both individually and in combination with a negative refspec

Signed-off-by: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>
---
 remote.c                          | 10 +++++++---
 t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
index 9f2450cb51b..7323694b163 100644
--- a/remote.c
+++ b/remote.c
@@ -751,9 +751,13 @@ static int query_matches_negative_refspec(struct refspec *rs, struct refspec_ite
 
 			if (match_name_with_pattern(key, needle, value, &expn_name))
 				string_list_append_nodup(&reversed, expn_name);
-		} else {
-			if (!strcmp(needle, refspec->src))
-				string_list_append(&reversed, refspec->src);
+		} else if (refspec->matching) {
+			/* For the special matching refspec, any query should match */
+			string_list_append(&reversed, needle);
+		} else if (!refspec->src) {
+			BUG("refspec->src should not be null here");
+		} else if (!strcmp(needle, refspec->src)) {
+			string_list_append(&reversed, refspec->src);
 		}
 	}
 
diff --git a/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh b/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
index 8c61e28fec8..30209e98a62 100755
--- a/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
+++ b/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
@@ -186,4 +186,26 @@ test_expect_success "fetch --prune with negative refspec" '
 	)
 '
 
+test_expect_success "push with matching ':' refspec" '
+	test_config -C two remote.one.push : &&
+	# Fails w/ tip behind counterpart - but should not segfault
+	test_must_fail git -C two push one
+'
+
+test_expect_success "push with matching '+:' refspec" '
+	test_config -C two remote.one.push +: &&
+	# Fails w/ tip behind counterpart - but should not segfault
+	test_must_fail git -C two push one
+'
+
+test_expect_success "push with matching and negative refspec" '
+	test_config -C two --add remote.one.push : &&
+	# Fails to push master w/ tip behind counterpart
+	test_must_fail git -C two push one &&
+
+	# If master is in negative refspec, then the command will succeed
+	test_config -C two --add remote.one.push ^refs/heads/master &&
+	git -C two push one
+'
+
 test_done
-- 
gitgitgadget

Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec

[Eric Sunshine]

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 9:05 PM Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget
<gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote:
> The logic added to check for negative pathspec match by c0192df630
> (refspec: add support for negative refspecs, 2020-09-30) looks at
> refspec->src assuming it is never NULL, however when
> remote.origin.push is set to ":", then refspec->src is NULL,
> causing a segfault within strcmp
>
> Tell git to handle matching refspec by adding the needle to the
> set of positively matched refspecs, since matching ":" refspecs
> match anything as src.
>
> Added testing for matching refspec pushes fetch-negative-refspec

s/Added testing/Add test/

> both individually and in combination with a negative refspec
>
> Signed-off-by: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh b/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
> @@ -186,4 +186,26 @@ test_expect_success "fetch --prune with negative refspec" '
> +test_expect_success "push with matching ':' refspec" '
> +       test_config -C two remote.one.push : &&
> +       # Fails w/ tip behind counterpart - but should not segfault
> +       test_must_fail git -C two push one
> +'

Nit: It is understood implicitly that Git should not segfault (or
indeed any software). That's also implied by use of test_must_fail()
which explicitly distinguishes expected failures from unexpected
failures (where segfault falls in the category of unexpected failure).
Therefore, it doesn't really add value to say "but should not
segfault" in the comment.

Same observation applies to the other similarly-worded comments in
this patch. Not alone worth a re-roll, but perhaps worth changing if
you do re-roll.

[PATCH v3 3/3] negative-refspec: improve comment on query_matches_negative_refspec

[Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget]

From: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>

Comment did not adequately explain how the two loops work
together to achieve the goal of querying for matching of any
negative refspec.

Signed-off-by: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>
---
 remote.c | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
index 7323694b163..c3f85c17ca7 100644
--- a/remote.c
+++ b/remote.c
@@ -736,6 +736,12 @@ static int query_matches_negative_refspec(struct refspec *rs, struct refspec_ite
 	 * item uses the destination. To handle this, we apply pattern
 	 * refspecs in reverse to figure out if the query source matches any
 	 * of the negative refspecs.
+	 *
+	 * The first loop finds and expands all positive refspecs
+	 * matched by the queried ref.
+	 *
+	 * The second loop checks if any of the results of the first loop
+	 * match any negative refspec.
 	 */
 	for (i = 0; i < rs->nr; i++) {
 		struct refspec_item *refspec = &rs->items[i];
-- 
gitgitgadget

[PATCH v4 0/2] negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec

[Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget]

If remote.origin.push was set to ":", git segfaults during a push operation,
due to bad parsing logic in query_matches_negative_refspec. Per bisect, the
bug was introduced in: c0192df630 (refspec: add support for negative
refspecs, 2020-09-30)

We found this issue when rolling out git 2.29 at Dropbox - as several folks
had "push = :" in their configuration. I based my diff off the master
branch, but also confirmed that it patches cleanly onto maint - if the
maintainers would like to also fix the segfault on 2.29

Update since Patch series V1:

 * Handled matching refspec explicitly
 * Added testing for "+:" case
 * Added comment explaining how the two loops work together

Update since Patch series V2

 * style suggestion in remote.c
 * Use test_config
 * Add test for a case with a matching refspec + negative refspec
 * Fix test_config to work with --add
 * Updated commit message to describe what git is told to do instead of
   segfaulting

Update since Patch series V3

 * Removed commit modifying test_config
 * Remove segfault-related comments in test
 * Consolidate the three tests to two tests (1st and 3rd test overlapped in
   functionality)
 * Base the patch series on the maint branch - since the bug affects 2.29.2

Appreciate the reviews from Junio and Eric! Happy Holidays!

Nipunn Koorapati (2):
  negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec
  negative-refspec: improve comment on query_matches_negative_refspec

 remote.c                          | 16 +++++++++++++---
 t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)


base-commit: 898f80736c75878acc02dc55672317fcc0e0a5a6
Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-820%2Fnipunn1313%2Fnk%2Fpush-refspec-segfault-v4
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-820/nipunn1313/nk/push-refspec-segfault-v4
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/820

Range-diff vs v3:

 1:  733c674bd19 < -:  ----------- test-lib-functions: handle --add in test_config
 2:  20cff2f5c59 ! 1:  e59ff29bdef negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec
     @@ Commit message
          (refspec: add support for negative refspecs, 2020-09-30) looks at
          refspec->src assuming it is never NULL, however when
          remote.origin.push is set to ":", then refspec->src is NULL,
     -    causing a segfault within strcmp
     +    causing a segfault within strcmp.
      
          Tell git to handle matching refspec by adding the needle to the
          set of positively matched refspecs, since matching ":" refspecs
          match anything as src.
      
     -    Added testing for matching refspec pushes fetch-negative-refspec
     -    both individually and in combination with a negative refspec
     +    Add test for matching refspec pushes fetch-negative-refspec
     +    both individually and in combination with a negative refspec.
      
          Signed-off-by: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>
      
     @@ t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh: test_expect_success "fetch --prune with negat
       	)
       '
       
     -+test_expect_success "push with matching ':' refspec" '
     ++test_expect_success "push with matching : and negative refspec" '
      +	test_config -C two remote.one.push : &&
     -+	# Fails w/ tip behind counterpart - but should not segfault
     -+	test_must_fail git -C two push one
     -+'
     ++	# Fails to push master w/ tip behind counterpart
     ++	test_must_fail git -C two push one &&
      +
     -+test_expect_success "push with matching '+:' refspec" '
     -+	test_config -C two remote.one.push +: &&
     -+	# Fails w/ tip behind counterpart - but should not segfault
     -+	test_must_fail git -C two push one
     ++	# If master is in negative refspec, then the command will not attempt
     ++	# to push and succeed.
     ++	# We do not need test_config here as we are updating remote.one.push
     ++	# again. The teardown of the first test_config will do --unset-all
     ++	git -C two config --add remote.one.push ^refs/heads/master &&
     ++	git -C two push one
      +'
      +
     -+test_expect_success "push with matching and negative refspec" '
     -+	test_config -C two --add remote.one.push : &&
     ++test_expect_success "push with matching +: and negative refspec" '
     ++	test_config -C two remote.one.push +: &&
      +	# Fails to push master w/ tip behind counterpart
      +	test_must_fail git -C two push one &&
      +
     -+	# If master is in negative refspec, then the command will succeed
     -+	test_config -C two --add remote.one.push ^refs/heads/master &&
     ++	# If master is in negative refspec, then the command will not attempt
     ++	# to push and succeed
     ++	git -C two config --add remote.one.push ^refs/heads/master &&
      +	git -C two push one
      +'
      +
 3:  0fd4e9f7459 = 2:  20575407cc0 negative-refspec: improve comment on query_matches_negative_refspec

-- 
gitgitgadget

[PATCH v4 1/2] negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec

[Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget]

From: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>

The logic added to check for negative pathspec match by c0192df630
(refspec: add support for negative refspecs, 2020-09-30) looks at
refspec->src assuming it is never NULL, however when
remote.origin.push is set to ":", then refspec->src is NULL,
causing a segfault within strcmp.

Tell git to handle matching refspec by adding the needle to the
set of positively matched refspecs, since matching ":" refspecs
match anything as src.

Add test for matching refspec pushes fetch-negative-refspec
both individually and in combination with a negative refspec.

Signed-off-by: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>
---
 remote.c                          | 10 +++++++---
 t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
index 8be67f0892b..4f1a4099f1a 100644
--- a/remote.c
+++ b/remote.c
@@ -751,9 +751,13 @@ static int query_matches_negative_refspec(struct refspec *rs, struct refspec_ite
 
 			if (match_name_with_pattern(key, needle, value, &expn_name))
 				string_list_append_nodup(&reversed, expn_name);
-		} else {
-			if (!strcmp(needle, refspec->src))
-				string_list_append(&reversed, refspec->src);
+		} else if (refspec->matching) {
+			/* For the special matching refspec, any query should match */
+			string_list_append(&reversed, needle);
+		} else if (!refspec->src) {
+			BUG("refspec->src should not be null here");
+		} else if (!strcmp(needle, refspec->src)) {
+			string_list_append(&reversed, refspec->src);
 		}
 	}
 
diff --git a/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh b/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
index 8c61e28fec8..a4960c586b1 100755
--- a/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
+++ b/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
@@ -186,4 +186,28 @@ test_expect_success "fetch --prune with negative refspec" '
 	)
 '
 
+test_expect_success "push with matching : and negative refspec" '
+	test_config -C two remote.one.push : &&
+	# Fails to push master w/ tip behind counterpart
+	test_must_fail git -C two push one &&
+
+	# If master is in negative refspec, then the command will not attempt
+	# to push and succeed.
+	# We do not need test_config here as we are updating remote.one.push
+	# again. The teardown of the first test_config will do --unset-all
+	git -C two config --add remote.one.push ^refs/heads/master &&
+	git -C two push one
+'
+
+test_expect_success "push with matching +: and negative refspec" '
+	test_config -C two remote.one.push +: &&
+	# Fails to push master w/ tip behind counterpart
+	test_must_fail git -C two push one &&
+
+	# If master is in negative refspec, then the command will not attempt
+	# to push and succeed
+	git -C two config --add remote.one.push ^refs/heads/master &&
+	git -C two push one
+'
+
 test_done
-- 
gitgitgadget

Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec

[Junio C Hamano]

"Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:

> +test_expect_success "push with matching : and negative refspec" '
> +	test_config -C two remote.one.push : &&
> +	# Fails to push master w/ tip behind counterpart
> +	test_must_fail git -C two push one &&

I offhand do not know where the master branch of two and one
repositories are, but I presume that one's master is not an ancestor
of two's master here, and the reason why this fails is because we
would prevent such a non-ff push unless forced?  Are there other
matching refs between one and two that are subject to the push
operation here, or is the 'master' the only thing that exists?

> +	# If master is in negative refspec, then the command will not attempt
> +	# to push and succeed.
> +	# We do not need test_config here as we are updating remote.one.push
> +	# again. The teardown of the first test_config will do --unset-all
> +	git -C two config --add remote.one.push ^refs/heads/master &&
> +	git -C two push one

... and the idea of the test is that by adding a "we do not want to
push out our master" configuration, we no longer attempt to push out
the 'master' branch from two that is not a descendant of the master
branch of one, so "push" would "succeed".  Is there other branches
involved, or this is essentially a no-op as there is only 'master'
branch involved in the operation?

> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success "push with matching +: and negative refspec" '
> +	test_config -C two remote.one.push +: &&
> +	# Fails to push master w/ tip behind counterpart
> +	test_must_fail git -C two push one &&

Assuming that the successful case from the previous test was a
no-op, we start from the same condition from the previous one.  THe
only difference is that the matching push is now configured to force.

So, how would this one fail, exactly?  Aren't we forcing?  Shouldn't
we succeed in such a case?

I think the test still fails to push but for a different reason.  It
is not because the tip being pushed is not ahead of the counterpart
at the receiving repository.  +: (i.e. force-push matching refs)
takes care of the "must fast-forward" requirement that causes the
previous one to fail.

It is because the receiving repository is not a bare repository, and
the push attempts to update its current branch.  It cannot be forced
with + prefix, and that is why it fails.

So, the comment above is wrong.  Perhaps

	# Fail to update the branch currently checked out.

or something.

> +	# If master is in negative refspec, then the command will not attempt
> +	# to push and succeed
> +	git -C two config --add remote.one.push ^refs/heads/master &&
> +	git -C two push one

And this succeeds for the same reason, i.e. it becomes no-op because
there is no other branches involved?

> +'
> +
>  test_done

Ideally, we should make sure that the next person who reads "git
show" output of the commit that would result from the patch would
not have to ask any of the "?" asked in the review above.  Let me
see if I can come up with a suggestion to get us closer to that
goal.

	... goes and hacks ...

Perhaps squash the following into this step?

Thanks.


 t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh | 22 ++++++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git c/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh w/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
index a4960c586b..bed67cf92d 100755
--- c/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
+++ w/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
@@ -187,8 +187,13 @@ test_expect_success "fetch --prune with negative refspec" '
 '
 
 test_expect_success "push with matching : and negative refspec" '
+	# Repositories two and one have branches other than master"
+	# but they have no overlap---"master" is the only one that
+	# is shared between them.  And the master branch at two is
+	# behind the master branch at one by one commit.
 	test_config -C two remote.one.push : &&
-	# Fails to push master w/ tip behind counterpart
+
+	# A matching push tries to update master, fails due to non-ff
 	test_must_fail git -C two push one &&
 
 	# If master is in negative refspec, then the command will not attempt
@@ -196,18 +201,27 @@ test_expect_success "push with matching : and negative refspec" '
 	# We do not need test_config here as we are updating remote.one.push
 	# again. The teardown of the first test_config will do --unset-all
 	git -C two config --add remote.one.push ^refs/heads/master &&
-	git -C two push one
+
+	# With "master" excluded, this push is a no-op.  Nothing gets
+	# pushed and it succeeds.
+	git -C two push -v one
 '
 
 test_expect_success "push with matching +: and negative refspec" '
+	# The same set-up as above, whose side-effect was a no-op.
 	test_config -C two remote.one.push +: &&
-	# Fails to push master w/ tip behind counterpart
+
+	# The push refuses to update the "master" branch that is checked
+	# out in the "one" repository, even when it is forced with +:
 	test_must_fail git -C two push one &&
 
 	# If master is in negative refspec, then the command will not attempt
 	# to push and succeed
 	git -C two config --add remote.one.push ^refs/heads/master &&
-	git -C two push one
+
+	# With "master" excluded, this push is a no-op.  Nothing gets
+	# pushed and it succeeds.
+	git -C two push -v one
 '
 
 test_done

Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec

[Junio C Hamano]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> @@ -196,18 +201,27 @@ test_expect_success "push with matching : and negative refspec" '
>  	# We do not need test_config here as we are updating remote.one.push
>  	# again. The teardown of the first test_config will do --unset-all
>  	git -C two config --add remote.one.push ^refs/heads/master &&
> -	git -C two push one
> +
> +	# With "master" excluded, this push is a no-op.  Nothing gets
> +	# pushed and it succeeds.
> +	git -C two push -v one
>  '

Another obvious thing is that these tests will not work without
tweaking when merged to 'seen', as over there the name given by
default to the initial branch might not be 'master'.  The negative
refspec specification must be written in a way not to depend on
a particular name, I think.

Here is another try (disregard the previous one and squash this one
on top of your 1/2).

Thanks.

 t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git c/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh w/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
index a4960c586b..83a3c58c0c 100755
--- c/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
+++ w/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
@@ -187,27 +187,50 @@ test_expect_success "fetch --prune with negative refspec" '
 '
 
 test_expect_success "push with matching : and negative refspec" '
+	# For convenience, we use "master" to refer to the name of
+	# the branch created by default in the following.
+	#
+	# Repositories two and one have branches other than "master"
+	# but they have no overlap---"master" is the only one that
+	# is shared between them.  And the master branch at two is
+	# behind the master branch at one by one commit.
 	test_config -C two remote.one.push : &&
-	# Fails to push master w/ tip behind counterpart
+
+	# A matching push tries to update master, fails due to non-ff
 	test_must_fail git -C two push one &&
 
+	# "master" may actually not be "master"---find it out.
+	current=$(git symbolic-ref HEAD) &&
+
 	# If master is in negative refspec, then the command will not attempt
 	# to push and succeed.
 	# We do not need test_config here as we are updating remote.one.push
 	# again. The teardown of the first test_config will do --unset-all
-	git -C two config --add remote.one.push ^refs/heads/master &&
-	git -C two push one
+	git -C two config --add remote.one.push "^$current" &&
+
+	# With "master" excluded, this push is a no-op.  Nothing gets
+	# pushed and it succeeds.
+	git -C two push -v one
 '
 
 test_expect_success "push with matching +: and negative refspec" '
+	# The same set-up as above, whose side-effect was a no-op.
 	test_config -C two remote.one.push +: &&
-	# Fails to push master w/ tip behind counterpart
+
+	# The push refuses to update the "master" branch that is checked
+	# out in the "one" repository, even when it is forced with +:
 	test_must_fail git -C two push one &&
 
+	# "master" may actually not be "master"---find it out.
+	current=$(git symbolic-ref HEAD) &&
+
 	# If master is in negative refspec, then the command will not attempt
 	# to push and succeed
-	git -C two config --add remote.one.push ^refs/heads/master &&
-	git -C two push one
+	git -C two config --add remote.one.push "^$current" &&
+
+	# With "master" excluded, this push is a no-op.  Nothing gets
+	# pushed and it succeeds.
+	git -C two push -v one
 '
 
 test_done

[PATCH v4 2/2] negative-refspec: improve comment on query_matches_negative_refspec

[Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget]

From: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>

Comment did not adequately explain how the two loops work
together to achieve the goal of querying for matching of any
negative refspec.

Signed-off-by: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>
---
 remote.c | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
index 4f1a4099f1a..4d150a316ed 100644
--- a/remote.c
+++ b/remote.c
@@ -736,6 +736,12 @@ static int query_matches_negative_refspec(struct refspec *rs, struct refspec_ite
 	 * item uses the destination. To handle this, we apply pattern
 	 * refspecs in reverse to figure out if the query source matches any
 	 * of the negative refspecs.
+	 *
+	 * The first loop finds and expands all positive refspecs
+	 * matched by the queried ref.
+	 *
+	 * The second loop checks if any of the results of the first loop
+	 * match any negative refspec.
 	 */
 	for (i = 0; i < rs->nr; i++) {
 		struct refspec_item *refspec = &rs->items[i];
-- 
gitgitgadget

[PATCH v5 0/2] negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec

[Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget]

If remote.origin.push was set to ":", git segfaults during a push operation,
due to bad parsing logic in query_matches_negative_refspec. Per bisect, the
bug was introduced in: c0192df630 (refspec: add support for negative
refspecs, 2020-09-30)

We found this issue when rolling out git 2.29 at Dropbox - as several folks
had "push = :" in their configuration. I based my diff off the master
branch, but also confirmed that it patches cleanly onto maint - if the
maintainers would like to also fix the segfault on 2.29

Update since Patch series V1:

 * Handled matching refspec explicitly
 * Added testing for "+:" case
 * Added comment explaining how the two loops work together

Update since Patch series V2

 * style suggestion in remote.c
 * Use test_config
 * Add test for a case with a matching refspec + negative refspec
 * Fix test_config to work with --add
 * Updated commit message to describe what git is told to do instead of
   segfaulting

Update since Patch series V3

 * Removed commit modifying test_config
 * Remove segfault-related comments in test
 * Consolidate the three tests to two tests (1st and 3rd test overlapped in
   functionality)
 * Base the patch series on the maint branch - since the bug affects 2.29.2

Update since Patch series V4

 * Squashed in Junio's patch to handle non-master named branches
 * Explicitly use test_unconfig

Appreciate the reviews from Junio and Eric! Happy Holidays!

Nipunn Koorapati (2):
  negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec
  negative-refspec: improve comment on query_matches_negative_refspec

 remote.c                          | 16 ++++++++--
 t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)


base-commit: 898f80736c75878acc02dc55672317fcc0e0a5a6
Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-820%2Fnipunn1313%2Fnk%2Fpush-refspec-segfault-v5
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-820/nipunn1313/nk/push-refspec-segfault-v5
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/820

Range-diff vs v4:

 1:  e59ff29bdef ! 1:  48c79dc3d84 negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec
     @@ t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh: test_expect_success "fetch --prune with negat
       '
       
      +test_expect_success "push with matching : and negative refspec" '
     -+	test_config -C two remote.one.push : &&
     -+	# Fails to push master w/ tip behind counterpart
     ++	# Manually handle cleanup, since test_config is not
     ++	# prepared to take arbitrary options like --add
     ++	test_when_finished "test_unconfig -C two remote.one.push" &&
     ++
     ++	# For convenience, we use "master" to refer to the name of
     ++	# the branch created by default in the following.
     ++	#
     ++	# Repositories two and one have branches other than "master"
     ++	# but they have no overlap---"master" is the only one that
     ++	# is shared between them.  And the master branch at two is
     ++	# behind the master branch at one by one commit.
     ++	git -C two config --add remote.one.push : &&
     ++
     ++	# A matching push tries to update master, fails due to non-ff
      +	test_must_fail git -C two push one &&
      +
     ++	# "master" may actually not be "master"---find it out.
     ++	current=$(git symbolic-ref HEAD) &&
     ++
      +	# If master is in negative refspec, then the command will not attempt
      +	# to push and succeed.
     -+	# We do not need test_config here as we are updating remote.one.push
     -+	# again. The teardown of the first test_config will do --unset-all
     -+	git -C two config --add remote.one.push ^refs/heads/master &&
     -+	git -C two push one
     ++	git -C two config --add remote.one.push "^$current" &&
     ++
     ++	# With "master" excluded, this push is a no-op.  Nothing gets
     ++	# pushed and it succeeds.
     ++	git -C two push -v one
      +'
      +
      +test_expect_success "push with matching +: and negative refspec" '
     -+	test_config -C two remote.one.push +: &&
     -+	# Fails to push master w/ tip behind counterpart
     ++	test_when_finished "test_unconfig -C two remote.one.push" &&
     ++
     ++	# The same set-up as above, whose side-effect was a no-op.
     ++	git -C two config --add remote.one.push +: &&
     ++
     ++	# The push refuses to update the "master" branch that is checked
     ++	# out in the "one" repository, even when it is forced with +:
      +	test_must_fail git -C two push one &&
      +
     ++	# "master" may actually not be "master"---find it out.
     ++	current=$(git symbolic-ref HEAD) &&
     ++
      +	# If master is in negative refspec, then the command will not attempt
      +	# to push and succeed
     -+	git -C two config --add remote.one.push ^refs/heads/master &&
     -+	git -C two push one
     ++	git -C two config --add remote.one.push "^$current" &&
     ++
     ++	# With "master" excluded, this push is a no-op.  Nothing gets
     ++	# pushed and it succeeds.
     ++	git -C two push -v one
      +'
      +
       test_done
 2:  20575407cc0 = 2:  1f9af0e991c negative-refspec: improve comment on query_matches_negative_refspec

-- 
gitgitgadget

[PATCH v5 1/2] negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec

[Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget]

From: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>

The logic added to check for negative pathspec match by c0192df630
(refspec: add support for negative refspecs, 2020-09-30) looks at
refspec->src assuming it is never NULL, however when
remote.origin.push is set to ":", then refspec->src is NULL,
causing a segfault within strcmp.

Tell git to handle matching refspec by adding the needle to the
set of positively matched refspecs, since matching ":" refspecs
match anything as src.

Add test for matching refspec pushes fetch-negative-refspec
both individually and in combination with a negative refspec.

Signed-off-by: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>
---
 remote.c                          | 10 ++++--
 t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
index 8be67f0892b..4f1a4099f1a 100644
--- a/remote.c
+++ b/remote.c
@@ -751,9 +751,13 @@ static int query_matches_negative_refspec(struct refspec *rs, struct refspec_ite
 
 			if (match_name_with_pattern(key, needle, value, &expn_name))
 				string_list_append_nodup(&reversed, expn_name);
-		} else {
-			if (!strcmp(needle, refspec->src))
-				string_list_append(&reversed, refspec->src);
+		} else if (refspec->matching) {
+			/* For the special matching refspec, any query should match */
+			string_list_append(&reversed, needle);
+		} else if (!refspec->src) {
+			BUG("refspec->src should not be null here");
+		} else if (!strcmp(needle, refspec->src)) {
+			string_list_append(&reversed, refspec->src);
 		}
 	}
 
diff --git a/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh b/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
index 8c61e28fec8..2f3b064d0e7 100755
--- a/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
+++ b/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
@@ -186,4 +186,55 @@ test_expect_success "fetch --prune with negative refspec" '
 	)
 '
 
+test_expect_success "push with matching : and negative refspec" '
+	# Manually handle cleanup, since test_config is not
+	# prepared to take arbitrary options like --add
+	test_when_finished "test_unconfig -C two remote.one.push" &&
+
+	# For convenience, we use "master" to refer to the name of
+	# the branch created by default in the following.
+	#
+	# Repositories two and one have branches other than "master"
+	# but they have no overlap---"master" is the only one that
+	# is shared between them.  And the master branch at two is
+	# behind the master branch at one by one commit.
+	git -C two config --add remote.one.push : &&
+
+	# A matching push tries to update master, fails due to non-ff
+	test_must_fail git -C two push one &&
+
+	# "master" may actually not be "master"---find it out.
+	current=$(git symbolic-ref HEAD) &&
+
+	# If master is in negative refspec, then the command will not attempt
+	# to push and succeed.
+	git -C two config --add remote.one.push "^$current" &&
+
+	# With "master" excluded, this push is a no-op.  Nothing gets
+	# pushed and it succeeds.
+	git -C two push -v one
+'
+
+test_expect_success "push with matching +: and negative refspec" '
+	test_when_finished "test_unconfig -C two remote.one.push" &&
+
+	# The same set-up as above, whose side-effect was a no-op.
+	git -C two config --add remote.one.push +: &&
+
+	# The push refuses to update the "master" branch that is checked
+	# out in the "one" repository, even when it is forced with +:
+	test_must_fail git -C two push one &&
+
+	# "master" may actually not be "master"---find it out.
+	current=$(git symbolic-ref HEAD) &&
+
+	# If master is in negative refspec, then the command will not attempt
+	# to push and succeed
+	git -C two config --add remote.one.push "^$current" &&
+
+	# With "master" excluded, this push is a no-op.  Nothing gets
+	# pushed and it succeeds.
+	git -C two push -v one
+'
+
 test_done
-- 
gitgitgadget

Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec

[Jacob Keller]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 8:01 PM Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget
<gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>
>
> The logic added to check for negative pathspec match by c0192df630
> (refspec: add support for negative refspecs, 2020-09-30) looks at
> refspec->src assuming it is never NULL, however when
> remote.origin.push is set to ":", then refspec->src is NULL,
> causing a segfault within strcmp.
>
> Tell git to handle matching refspec by adding the needle to the
> set of positively matched refspecs, since matching ":" refspecs
> match anything as src.
>

This seems like the right approach to me. Thanks for the fix, and the
tests so we don't break it on accident again in the future.

belated, but....

Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com>

> Add test for matching refspec pushes fetch-negative-refspec
> both individually and in combination with a negative refspec.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>
> ---
>  remote.c                          | 10 ++++--
>  t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
> index 8be67f0892b..4f1a4099f1a 100644
> --- a/remote.c
> +++ b/remote.c
> @@ -751,9 +751,13 @@ static int query_matches_negative_refspec(struct refspec *rs, struct refspec_ite
>
>                         if (match_name_with_pattern(key, needle, value, &expn_name))
>                                 string_list_append_nodup(&reversed, expn_name);
> -               } else {
> -                       if (!strcmp(needle, refspec->src))
> -                               string_list_append(&reversed, refspec->src);
> +               } else if (refspec->matching) {
> +                       /* For the special matching refspec, any query should match */
> +                       string_list_append(&reversed, needle);

Right, so we explicitly handle matching first...

> +               } else if (!refspec->src) {
> +                       BUG("refspec->src should not be null here");

and then carefully check to make sure we don't end up with a NULL src
for some other reason, and at least BUG() instead of just crashing.

This shouldn't be possible because when we build the refspec, src is
always not NULL unless in the case of matching. Ok.

> +               } else if (!strcmp(needle, refspec->src)) {
> +                       string_list_append(&reversed, refspec->src);
>                 }
>         }

Yep, this looks like the best approach to solving this.

>
> diff --git a/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh b/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
> index 8c61e28fec8..2f3b064d0e7 100755
> --- a/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
> +++ b/t/t5582-fetch-negative-refspec.sh
> @@ -186,4 +186,55 @@ test_expect_success "fetch --prune with negative refspec" '
>         )
>  '
>
> +test_expect_success "push with matching : and negative refspec" '
> +       # Manually handle cleanup, since test_config is not
> +       # prepared to take arbitrary options like --add
> +       test_when_finished "test_unconfig -C two remote.one.push" &&
> +
> +       # For convenience, we use "master" to refer to the name of
> +       # the branch created by default in the following.
> +       #
> +       # Repositories two and one have branches other than "master"
> +       # but they have no overlap---"master" is the only one that
> +       # is shared between them.  And the master branch at two is
> +       # behind the master branch at one by one commit.
> +       git -C two config --add remote.one.push : &&
> +
> +       # A matching push tries to update master, fails due to non-ff
> +       test_must_fail git -C two push one &&
> +
> +       # "master" may actually not be "master"---find it out.
> +       current=$(git symbolic-ref HEAD) &&
> +
> +       # If master is in negative refspec, then the command will not attempt
> +       # to push and succeed.
> +       git -C two config --add remote.one.push "^$current" &&
> +
> +       # With "master" excluded, this push is a no-op.  Nothing gets
> +       # pushed and it succeeds.
> +       git -C two push -v one
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success "push with matching +: and negative refspec" '
> +       test_when_finished "test_unconfig -C two remote.one.push" &&
> +
> +       # The same set-up as above, whose side-effect was a no-op.
> +       git -C two config --add remote.one.push +: &&
> +
> +       # The push refuses to update the "master" branch that is checked
> +       # out in the "one" repository, even when it is forced with +:
> +       test_must_fail git -C two push one &&
> +
> +       # "master" may actually not be "master"---find it out.
> +       current=$(git symbolic-ref HEAD) &&
> +
> +       # If master is in negative refspec, then the command will not attempt
> +       # to push and succeed
> +       git -C two config --add remote.one.push "^$current" &&
> +
> +       # With "master" excluded, this push is a no-op.  Nothing gets
> +       # pushed and it succeeds.
> +       git -C two push -v one
> +'
> +
>  test_done
> --
> gitgitgadget
>

[PATCH v5 2/2] negative-refspec: improve comment on query_matches_negative_refspec

[Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget]

From: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>

Comment did not adequately explain how the two loops work
together to achieve the goal of querying for matching of any
negative refspec.

Signed-off-by: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@dropbox.com>
---
 remote.c | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
index 4f1a4099f1a..4d150a316ed 100644
--- a/remote.c
+++ b/remote.c
@@ -736,6 +736,12 @@ static int query_matches_negative_refspec(struct refspec *rs, struct refspec_ite
 	 * item uses the destination. To handle this, we apply pattern
 	 * refspecs in reverse to figure out if the query source matches any
 	 * of the negative refspecs.
+	 *
+	 * The first loop finds and expands all positive refspecs
+	 * matched by the queried ref.
+	 *
+	 * The second loop checks if any of the results of the first loop
+	 * match any negative refspec.
 	 */
 	for (i = 0; i < rs->nr; i++) {
 		struct refspec_item *refspec = &rs->items[i];
-- 
gitgitgadget

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec

[Junio C Hamano]

"Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:

> Update since Patch series V4
>
>  * Squashed in Junio's patch to handle non-master named branches
>  * Explicitly use test_unconfig
>
> Appreciate the reviews from Junio and Eric! Happy Holidays!
>
> Nipunn Koorapati (2):
>   negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec
>   negative-refspec: improve comment on query_matches_negative_refspec

Thanks, will replace.  Happy holidays to you, too.

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec

[Nipunn Koorapati]

Is this something we want to merge into the 2.29 maint branch?
It is a segfault for anyone pushing with matching refspecs on 2.29
At what point does git stop patching bugs in the maint branch?

--Nipunn


--Nipunn

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 6:49 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> "Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Update since Patch series V4
> >
> >  * Squashed in Junio's patch to handle non-master named branches
> >  * Explicitly use test_unconfig
> >
> > Appreciate the reviews from Junio and Eric! Happy Holidays!
> >
> > Nipunn Koorapati (2):
> >   negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec
> >   negative-refspec: improve comment on query_matches_negative_refspec
>
> Thanks, will replace.  Happy holidays to you, too.

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec

[Junio C Hamano]

Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn1313@gmail.com> writes:

> Is this something we want to merge into the 2.29 maint branch?

Eventually by backporting, but a fix typically goes to the current
development track first so it would happen after 2.30 is finished, I
would think.

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec

[Nipunn Koorapati]

> Eventually by backporting, but a fix typically goes to the current
> development track first so it would happen after 2.30 is finished, I
> would think.

I wanted to bump this idea - now that it appears that 2.30 is complete
and the new maint branch. Given that this patch makes matching-refspec
unusable in 2.29, would it make sense to backport a fix to the 2.29
release? If that seems risky/unwanted, is there some practice of
documenting known (serious) bugs in past releases?

Thanks
--Nipunn

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec

[Junio C Hamano]

Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn1313@gmail.com> writes:

>> Eventually by backporting, but a fix typically goes to the current
>> development track first so it would happen after 2.30 is finished, I
>> would think.
>
> I wanted to bump this idea - now that it appears that 2.30 is complete
> and the new maint branch. Given that this patch makes matching-refspec
> unusable in 2.29, would it make sense to backport a fix to the 2.29
> release?

Yes, it does make sense.

If we were to spend engineering effort to cut a 2.29.1, however,
we'd better make sure not just this fix but all the other fixes
relevant to the 2.29 track that are already well tested are included
in it.  We just issued 2.30 and not many people are using it to
exercise a relatively new negative pathspec feature yet, so it
probably is a good idea to spend a weeks or two to enumerate what
other things we want to be in the 2.29 maintenance track.

I personally do not have time for doing that myself right now, but
luckily it is something contributors like you can step in to help
;-)

Thanks.