Re: [PATCH v3 04/11] unpack-trees: introduce preserve_ignored to unpack_trees_options

>
> On Sat, Oct 02 2021, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 01 2021, Elijah Newren wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 1:47 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Sep 30 2021, Elijah Newren wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 7:15 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
> >>> > <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Wed, Sep 29 2021, Elijah Newren wrote:
> [...]
> >>> > I might be going on a tangent here, but looking at that patch, I'm
> >>> > worried that dir_init() was buggy and that you perpetuated that bug
> >>> > with DIR_INIT.  Note that dir_struct has a struct strbuf basebuf
> >>> > member, which neither dir_init() or DIR_INIT initialize properly
> >>> > (using either strbuf_init() or STRBUF_INIT).  As far as I can tell,
> >>> > dir.c relies on either strbuf_add() calls to just happen to work with
> >>> > this incorrectly initialized strbuf, or else use the strbuf_init()
> >>> > call in prep_exclude() to do so, using the following snippet:
> >>> >
> >>> >     if (!dir->basebuf.buf)
> >>> >         strbuf_init(&dir->basebuf, PATH_MAX);
> >>> >
> >>> > However, earlier in that same function we see
> >>> >
> >>> >     if (stk->baselen <= baselen &&
> >>> >         !strncmp(dir->basebuf.buf, base, stk->baselen))
> >>> >             break;
> >>> >
> >>> > So either that function can never have dir->basebuf.buf be NULL and
> >>> > the strbuf_init() is dead code, or else it's possible for us to
> >>> > trigger a segfault.  If it's the former, it may just be a ticking time
> >>> > bomb that will transform into the latter with some other change,
> >>> > because it's not at all obvious to me how dir->basebuf gets
> >>> > initialized appropriately to avoid that strncmp call.  Perhaps there
> >>> > is some invariant where exclude_stack is only set up by previous calls
> >>> > to prep_exclude() and those won't set up exclude_stack until first
> >>> > initializing basebuf.  But that really at least deserves a comment
> >>> > about how we're abusing basebuf, and would probably be cleaner if we
> >>> > initialized basebuf to STRBUF_INIT.
> >>>
> >>> ...because yes, I forgot about that when sending you the diff-on-top,
> >>> sorry. Yes that's buggy with the diff-on-top I sent you.
> >>
> >> That bug didn't come from the diff-on-top you sent me, it came from
> >> the commit already merged to master -- ce93a4c6127  (dir.[ch]: replace
> >> dir_init() with DIR_INIT, 2021-07-01), merged as part of
> >> ab/struct-init on Jul 16.
> >
> > Ah, I misunderstood you there. I'll look at that / fix it. Sorry.
>
> Just to tie up this loose end: Yes this control flow suck, and I've got
> some patches to unpack-trees.[ch] & dir.[ch] I'm about to submit to fix
> it. But just to comment on the existing behavior of the code, i.e. your
> (above):
>
>     "So either that function can never have dir->basebuf.buf be NULL and
>     the strbuf_init() is dead code, or else it's possible for us to
>     trigger a segfault.".
>
> I hadn't had time to look into it when I said I'd fix it, but now that I
> have I found thath there's nothing to fix, and this code wasn't buggy
> either before or after my ce93a4c6127 (dir.[ch]: replace dir_init() with
> DIR_INIT, 2021-07-01). I.e. we do have the invariant you mentioned.
>
> The dir.[ch] API has always relied on the "struct dir_struct" being
> zero'd out. First with memset() before your eceba532141 (dir: fix
> problematic API to avoid memory leaks, 2020-08-18), and after my
> ce93a4c6127 with the DIR_INIT, which both amount to the same thing.
>
> We both missed a caller that used neither dir_init() nor uses DIR_INIT
> now, but it uses "{ 0 }", so it's always zero'd.
>
> Now, of course it being zero'd *would* segfault if you feed
> "dir->basebuf.buf" to strncmp() as you note above, but that code isn't
> reachable. The structure of that function is (pseudocode):
>
> void prep_exclude(...)
> {
>         struct exclude_stack *stk = NULL;
>         [...]
>
>         while ((stk = dir->exclude_stack) != NULL)
>                 /* the strncmp() against "dir->basebuf.buf" is here */
>
>         /* maybe we'll early return here */
>
>         if (!dir->basebuf.buf)
>                 strbuf_init(&dir->basebuf, PATH_MAX);
>
>         /*
>          * Code that sets dir->exclude_stack to non-NULL for the first
>          * time follows...
>          */
> }
>
> I.e. dir->exclude_stack is *only* referenced in this function and
> dir_clear() (where we also check it for NULL first).
>
> It's state management between calls to prep_exclude(). So that that
> initial while-loop can only be entered the the >1th time prep_exclude()
> is called.
>
> We'll then either have reached that strbuf_init() already, or if we took
> an early return before the strbuf_init() we couldn't have set
> dir->exclude_stack either. So that "dir->basebuf.buf" dereference is
> safe in either case.