git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Sergey Kosukhin <skosukhin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tag: fix sign_buffer() call to create a signed tag
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 15:26:34 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240208202634.GA1090198@coredump.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqq5xyzr6tm.fsf@gitster.g>

On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 07:08:37PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > FWIW, I would have gone the other way, and fixed sign_buffer_ssh(). Your
> > solution here is future-proofing the tag code against other
> > sign_buffer_*() functions behaving like ssh. But it is also leaving
> > other sign_buffer() callers to introduce the same bug.
> >
> > Your documentation change at least makes that less likely. But given how
> > much of our code uses the "negative is error" convention, I wouldn't be
> > surprised to see it happen anyway.
> 
> Yeah, but other callers are prepared to honor the current return
> value convention used by gpg-interface, so "fixing" sign_buffer_ssh()
> would not give us any future-proofing.

It future-proofs against a hypothetical new sign_buffer() caller (just
like your patch future-proofs against a hypothetical new signing
backend).

> We could do belt and suspenders by tightening the other callers to
> only expect negative for errors (but then what should they do when
> they receive non-zero positive?  Should they BUG() out???) while
> teaching sign_buffer_ssh() that our convention is to return negative
> for an error, of course, but I am not sure if it that is worth it.

I'm not sure that's worth it, since we'd only notice if the error
triggered (so writing a test).

-Peff

      parent reply	other threads:[~2024-02-08 20:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-02-07 18:46 [PATCH] tag: fix sign_buffer() call to create a signed tag Junio C Hamano
2024-02-08  0:47 ` Jeff King
2024-02-08  3:08   ` Junio C Hamano
2024-02-08  5:29     ` Junio C Hamano
2024-02-08 21:27       ` Jeff King
2024-02-08 20:26     ` Jeff King [this message]

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=20240208202634.GA1090198@coredump.intra.peff.net \
    --to=peff@peff.net \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=skosukhin@gmail.com \
    /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).