git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 07/23] fsck: stop checking tag->tagged
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 00:51:19 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191018045118.GG17879@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191018044103.GA17625@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Way back in 92d4c85d24 (fsck-cache: fix SIGSEGV on bad tag object,
2005-05-03), we added an fsck check that the "tagged" field of a tag
struct isn't NULL. But that was mainly protecting the printing code for
"--tags", and that code wasn't moved along with the check as part of
ba002f3b28 (builtin-fsck: move common object checking code to fsck.c,
2008-02-25).

It could also serve to detect type mismatch problems (where a tag points
to object X as a commit, but really X is a blob), but it couldn't do so
reliably (we'd call lookup_commit(X), but it will only notice the
problem if we happen to have previously called lookup_blob(X) in the
same process). And as of a commit earlier in this series, we'd consider
that a parse error and complain about the object even before getting to
this point anyway.

So let's drop this "tag->tagged" check. It's not helping anything, and
getting rid of it makes the function conceptually cleaner, as it really
is just checking the buffer we feed it. In fact, we can get rid of our
one-line wrapper and just unify fsck_tag() and fsck_tag_buffer().

Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
---
 fsck.c | 15 ++-------------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fsck.c b/fsck.c
index a0f8ae7650..79ce3a97c8 100644
--- a/fsck.c
+++ b/fsck.c
@@ -798,8 +798,8 @@ static int fsck_commit(struct commit *commit, const char *data,
 	return ret;
 }
 
-static int fsck_tag_buffer(struct tag *tag, const char *data,
-	unsigned long size, struct fsck_options *options)
+static int fsck_tag(struct tag *tag, const char *data,
+		    unsigned long size, struct fsck_options *options)
 {
 	struct object_id oid;
 	int ret = 0;
@@ -893,17 +893,6 @@ static int fsck_tag_buffer(struct tag *tag, const char *data,
 	return ret;
 }
 
-static int fsck_tag(struct tag *tag, const char *data,
-	unsigned long size, struct fsck_options *options)
-{
-	struct object *tagged = tag->tagged;
-
-	if (!tagged)
-		return report(options, &tag->object, FSCK_MSG_BAD_TAG_OBJECT, "could not load tagged object");
-
-	return fsck_tag_buffer(tag, data, size, options);
-}
-
 struct fsck_gitmodules_data {
 	struct object *obj;
 	struct fsck_options *options;
-- 
2.23.0.1228.gee29b05929


  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-10-18  4:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-18  4:41 [PATCH 0/23] parsing and fsck cleanups Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:42 ` [PATCH 01/23] parse_commit_buffer(): treat lookup_commit() failure as parse error Jeff King
2019-10-24  3:37   ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-24 18:01     ` Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:43 ` [PATCH 02/23] parse_commit_buffer(): treat lookup_tree() " Jeff King
2019-10-24 23:12   ` Jonathan Tan
2019-10-24 23:22     ` Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:45 ` [PATCH 03/23] parse_tag_buffer(): treat NULL tag pointer " Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:47 ` [PATCH 04/23] remember commit/tag parse failures Jeff King
2019-10-24  3:51   ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-24 23:25   ` Jonathan Tan
2019-10-24 23:41     ` Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:48 ` [PATCH 05/23] fsck: stop checking commit->tree value Jeff King
2019-10-24  3:57   ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-18  4:49 ` [PATCH 06/23] fsck: stop checking commit->parent counts Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:51 ` Jeff King [this message]
2019-10-18  4:54 ` [PATCH 08/23] fsck: require an actual buffer for non-blobs Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:56 ` [PATCH 09/23] fsck: unify object-name code Jeff King
2019-10-24  6:05   ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-24 18:07     ` Jeff King
2019-10-25  3:23       ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-25 21:20         ` Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:56 ` [PATCH 10/23] fsck_describe_object(): build on our get_object_name() primitive Jeff King
2019-10-24  6:06   ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-18  4:57 ` [PATCH 11/23] fsck: use oids rather than objects for object_name API Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:58 ` [PATCH 12/23] fsck: don't require object structs for display functions Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:58 ` [PATCH 13/23] fsck: only provide oid/type in fsck_error callback Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:58 ` [PATCH 14/23] fsck: only require an oid for skiplist functions Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:59 ` [PATCH 15/23] fsck: don't require an object struct for report() Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:59 ` [PATCH 16/23] fsck: accept an oid instead of a "struct blob" for fsck_blob() Jeff King
2019-10-18  4:59 ` [PATCH 17/23] fsck: drop blob struct from fsck_finish() Jeff King
2019-10-18  5:00 ` [PATCH 18/23] fsck: don't require an object struct for fsck_ident() Jeff King
2019-10-18  5:00 ` [PATCH 19/23] fsck: don't require an object struct in verify_headers() Jeff King
2019-10-18  5:00 ` [PATCH 20/23] fsck: rename vague "oid" local variables Jeff King
2019-10-18  5:01 ` [PATCH 21/23] fsck: accept an oid instead of a "struct tag" for fsck_tag() Jeff King
2019-10-18  5:01 ` [PATCH 22/23] fsck: accept an oid instead of a "struct commit" for fsck_commit() Jeff King
2019-10-18  5:02 ` [PATCH 23/23] fsck: accept an oid instead of a "struct tree" for fsck_tree() Jeff King
2019-10-24 23:49 ` [PATCH 0/23] parsing and fsck cleanups Jonathan Tan
2019-10-25  3:11 ` Junio C Hamano

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20191018045118.GG17879@sigill.intra.peff.net \
    --to=peff@peff.net \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).