Re: Bug in fetch-pack.c, please confirm

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Mar 19, 2015, 20:31 UTC
Message-ID: <20150319203126.GA31663@peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqtwxgizg9.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:01:26PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> > I'm working up a few patches in that area, which I'll send out in a few
> > minutes. Once that is done, then I think the explanation you give above
> > would be correct.
> 
> If a follow-up is coming then I'd just drop this one.  Thanks.

OK, here it is. Took me a bit longer than I expected, as I wanted to figure out whether the second patch was actually fixing a bug (and if so, to add test coverage). Turns out that it is a real bug.

The final patch is what you sent, rebased on top (though there are not any code changes; the underlying commits make the _explanation_ true, but no code change was required). I fixed up the nits I mentioned in my earlier email.

  [1/4]: filter_ref: avoid overwriting ref->old_sha1 with garbage
  [2/4]: filter_ref: make a copy of extra "sought" entries
  [3/4]: fetch_refs_via_pack: free extra copy of refs
  [4/4]: fetch-pack: remove dead assignment to ref->new_sha1

-Peff