Re: [PATCH] fix: check parameters in json-write.c
- From
- Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com>
- Date
- Sep 20, 2023, 20:02 UTC
- Message-ID
- <dc45106c-d569-3438-d2ff-c3c94b6161d7@jeffhostetler.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <ZQne3ThSw6HVmNJc@nand.local>
On 9/19/23 1:48 PM, Taylor Blau wrote:
Show 35 quoted lines
> [+cc Jeff Hostetler]
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 11:54:58AM +0000, mark via GitGitGadget wrote:
>> diff --git a/json-writer.c b/json-writer.c
>> index 005c820aa42..23ba7046e5d 100644
>> --- a/json-writer.c
>> +++ b/json-writer.c
>> @@ -20,6 +20,11 @@ static void append_quoted_string(struct strbuf *out, const char *in)
>> {
>> unsigned char c;
>>
>> + if (!in || !*in) {
>> + strbuf_addstr(out, "\"\"");
>> + return;
>> + }
>
> From reading the implementation of append_quoted_string(), I think that
> the case where "in" is the empty string is already covered. IOW, doing
> something like:
>
> struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
> append_quoted_string(&out, "");
> warning("'%s'", buf.buf);
>
> would print out something like:
>
> warning: '""'
>
> as expected. Handling a NULL "in" argument is new behavior, but I am not
> sure if it is appropriate to coerce a NULL input into the empty string.
> I've CC'd the author of this code, whose opinion I trust more than my
> own here.
>
> Thanks,
> TaylorThere are three callers of `append_quoted_string()` and it is static to the json-writer.c code.
Basically, in a JSON object, we have 2 uses:
{
"<key>" : "<string-value>",
"<key>" : <integer>,
...
}And in a JSON array, we have the other:
[
"<string-value>",
...
]I suppose it is OK for the 2 string-value cases to assume a NULL pointer could be written as "" in the JSON output. Although, I kinda think a NULL pointer should call BUG() as we have in the various assert_*() routines. It really is a kind of logic error in the caller.
Regardless what we decide for the <string-value> case, in the <key> case, the resulting JSON would not be valid. We need for the key to be a non-empty string. For example { "" : 1 } is not valid JSON. So the key case should call BUG() and not try to hide it.
So I'm leaning towards just making it a BUG() in all cases, but I'm open to the other mixed handling.
Jeff