Re: [PATCH v7 4/5] merge/pull Check for untrusted good GPG signatures

> John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk> writes:
> 
> > On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 04:33:57PM +0200, Sebastian Götte wrote:
> >> diff --git a/commit.c b/commit.c
> >> index eda7f90..bb2d9ad 100644
> >> --- a/commit.c
> >> +++ b/commit.c
> >> @@ -1029,6 +1029,8 @@ static struct {
> >>  } sigcheck_gpg_status[] = {
> >>  	{ 'G', "[GNUPG:] GOODSIG " },
> >>  	{ 'B', "[GNUPG:] BADSIG " },
> >> +	{ 'U', "[GNUPG:] TRUST_NEVER" },
> >> +	{ 'U', "[GNUPG:] TRUST_UNDEFINED" },
> >>  };
> >>  
> >>  static void parse_gpg_output(struct signature_check *sigc)
> >> @@ -1050,11 +1052,12 @@ static void parse_gpg_output(struct signature_check *sigc)
> >>  			found += strlen(sigcheck_gpg_status[i].check);
> >>  		}
> >>  		sigc->result = sigcheck_gpg_status[i].result;
> >> -		sigc->key = xmemdupz(found, 16);
> >> -		found += 17;
> >> -		next = strchrnul(found, '\n');
> >> -		sigc->signer = xmemdupz(found, next - found);
> >> -		break;
> >> +		if (sigc->result != 'U') {
> >
> > This could use a comment; we know now that only GOODSIG and BADSIG
> > are followed by a signature, but someone looking at this code in the
> > future will probably appreciate an explanation.
> 
> Wouldn't it be even less magical if there was an explicit field in the
> struct that says whether we need to read a sig from such a line?

> And furthermore, to use an enum instead of a char so that you can easily
> spell out the details in the code?  This also has the advantage that the
> compiler can check that your 'switch'es cover all cases.
>
> That's of course assuming that I interpret the logic right; my current
> understanding is that:
> 
> * U means untrusted, which is bettern than B but worse than G;