Re: [PATCH] unpack-trees.c: check return value of lstat()

From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: Mar 6, 2011, 20:57 UTC
Message-ID: <vpqpqq4ge71.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <4D73E577.1010604@web.de>

Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de> writes:

Show 11 quoted lines

> On 06.03.11 20:29, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>> Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de> writes:
>> 
>>> +		if (!lstat(path, &st))
>>> +			return check_ok_to_remove(path, len, DT_UNKNOWN, NULL, &st,
>>> +			                          error_type, o);
>>>  	} else if (!lstat(ce->name, &st))
>> 
>> What happens if lstat returns a non-0 value?
> The result of "st" is 100% garbage, and should not be passed to
> anybody.

With your code, you don't do a return, you'll reach the end of the function without calling return, which is probably the worst thing you could expect.

> v1.7.4 says:
> commit e39212ab08e8d37dda5d8fd32b54099fe01dbbdb
> Merge: 716958c 9e08273

You've cut the date:

commit e39212ab08e8d37dda5d8fd32b54099fe01dbbdb
Merge: 716958c 9e08273
Author: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date:   Wed Dec 22 14:40:26 2010 -0800

=> no big surprise that you don't see the bugfix from Jan 12th.

>> Anyway, this seems to have been fixed by a93e53018 (Wed Jan 12 20:28:09
>> 2011, unpack-trees: handle lstat failure for existing file) already.

Did you look at the content of this commit?

> (And I had to correct drizzd@aon.a -> drizzd@aon.at)

Yes, because you've mis-spelled it in the first place and I didn't fix it ;-).

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/