# [PATCH/RFC 1/6] tag: read signature 3 messages from 2009-02-22 to 2009-02-22. Participants: Marc-André Lureau, Junio C Hamano. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/17953 ## Marc-André Lureau, 2009-02-22 18:06 Subject: [PATCH/RFC 1/6] tag: read signature Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/e29894ca0902221006y4b0e29e7ucc8a04e8e6e42f4%40mail.gmail.com ``` Signed-off-by: Marc-Andre Lureau --- tag.c | 11 ++++++++--- tag.h | 2 +- 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/tag.c b/tag.c index 4470d2b..42e5b22 100644 --- a/tag.c +++ b/tag.c @@ -38,9 +38,9 @@ struct tag *lookup_tag(const unsigned char *sha1) int parse_tag_buffer(struct tag *item, void *data, unsigned long size) { - int typelen, taglen; + int typelen, taglen, siglen; unsigned char sha1[20]; - const char *type_line, *tag_line, *sig_line; + const char *type_line, *tag_line, *sig_line, *msg_line; char type[20]; const char *start = data; @@ -62,9 +62,12 @@ int parse_tag_buffer(struct tag *item, void *data, unsigned long size) return -1; sig_line = memchr(tag_line, '\n', size - (tag_line - start)); + if (!sig_line || memcmp("tagger ", ++sig_line, 7)) + return -1; + + msg_line = memchr(sig_line, '\n', size - (sig_line - start)); if (!sig_line) return -1; - sig_line++; typelen = tag_line - type_line - strlen("type \n"); if (typelen >= 20) @@ -73,6 +76,8 @@ int parse_tag_buffer(struct tag *item, void *data, unsigned long size) type[typelen] = '\0'; taglen = sig_line - tag_line - strlen("tag \n"); item->tag = xmemdupz(tag_line + 4, taglen); + siglen = msg_line - sig_line - strlen("tagger \n"); + item->signature = xmemdupz(sig_line + 7, siglen); if (!strcmp(type, blob_type)) { item->tagged = &lookup_blob(sha1)->object; diff --git a/tag.h b/tag.h index 7a0cb00..bc2cab3 100644 --- a/tag.h +++ b/tag.h @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ struct tag { struct object object; struct object *tagged; char *tag; - char *signature; /* not actually implemented */ + char *signature; }; extern struct tag *lookup_tag(const unsigned char *sha1); -- 1.6.2.rc1.28.g05ef4.dirty ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2009-02-22 18:18 Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 1/6] tag: read signature Message-ID: <7vskm6xrm7.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7vskm6xrm7.fsf%40gitster.siamese.dyndns.org In-Reply-To: ``` Marc-André Lureau writes: > diff --git a/tag.h b/tag.h > index 7a0cb00..bc2cab3 100644 > --- a/tag.h > +++ b/tag.h > @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ struct tag { > struct object object; > struct object *tagged; > char *tag; > - char *signature; /* not actually implemented */ > + char *signature; > }; I do not speak for Daniel, but I think the original intent of "signature" is about the GnuPG signature, not the "tagger" field. And this is not an objection. The use of GnuPG is accidental and at the low level of the object layer like this codepath we would not necessarily want to be married to it. Grabbing and parsing the tagger field like your patches 1/6 and 2/6 did would be more appropriate. But then we would probably want to rename this field "tagger" (and then the timestamp field you add in the next patch "tagger_date"). ``` ## Marc-André Lureau, 2009-02-22 18:25 Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 1/6] tag: read signature Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/e29894ca0902221025t5e015c96ycb90afaec4a33124%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <7vskm6xrm7.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> ``` Hi On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Marc-André Lureau writes: > >> diff --git a/tag.h b/tag.h >> index 7a0cb00..bc2cab3 100644 >> --- a/tag.h >> +++ b/tag.h >> @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ struct tag { >> struct object object; >> struct object *tagged; >> char *tag; >> - char *signature; /* not actually implemented */ >> + char *signature; >> }; > > I do not speak for Daniel, but I think the original intent of "signature" > is about the GnuPG signature, not the "tagger" field. > > And this is not an objection. The use of GnuPG is accidental and at the > low level of the object layer like this codepath we would not necessarily > want to be married to it. Grabbing and parsing the tagger field like your > patches 1/6 and 2/6 did would be more appropriate. > > But then we would probably want to rename this field "tagger" (and then > the timestamp field you add in the next patch "tagger_date"). > Yes, I though the same. But when I saw the way it was parsed before (the value of sig_line), I was not sure about naming. I agree it would be better to name it "tagger". regards, -- Marc-André Lureau Sent from: Helsinki Southern Finland Finland. ```