Thread (4 messages) flat view 4 messages, 4 authors, 2015-01-30

Re: [PATCH] apply: refuse touching a file beyond symlink

From: Jeff King <hidden>
Date: 2015-01-30 18:18:40
Also in: lkml
Subsystem: the rest · Maintainer: Linus Torvalds

Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:45:22PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
+static int path_is_beyond_symlink(const char *name_)
+{
+	struct strbuf name = STRBUF_INIT;
+
+	strbuf_addstr(&name, name_);
+	do {
+		struct patch *previous;
+
+		while (--name.len && name.buf[name.len] != '/')
+			; /* scan backwards */
+		if (!name.len)
+			break;
I imagine it is impossible here for "name_" to be initially empty, but
it would make the backwards-scan loop go quite badly. Worth a comment or
an assert()?
+		name.buf[name.len] = '\0';
+		previous = in_fn_table(name.buf);
+		if (previous) {
+			if (!was_deleted(previous) &&
+			    !to_be_deleted(previous) &&
+			    previous->new_mode &&
+			    S_ISLNK(previous->new_mode))
+				goto symlink_found;
+		} else if (check_index) {
+			int pos = cache_name_pos(name.buf, name.len);
+			if (0 <= pos &&
+			    S_ISLNK(active_cache[pos]->ce_mode))
+				goto symlink_found;
+		} else {
+			struct stat st;
+			if (!lstat(name.buf, &st) && S_ISLNK(st.st_mode))
+				goto symlink_found;
+		}
+	} while (1);
+
+	strbuf_release(&name);
+	return 0;
+symlink_found:
+	strbuf_release(&name);
+	return 1;
Style nit, but might this be easier to follow the logic without the
gotos, by putting the setup and cleanup in a wrapper function and
returning directly from the main logic?

  static int path_is_beyond_symlink(const char *name)
  {
	struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
	int ret;

	strbuf_addstr(&buf, name);
	ret = path_is_beyond_symlink_1(name);
	strbuf_release(&buf);

	return ret;
  }

I can live with it either way, though.
+	if (!patch->is_delete && path_is_beyond_symlink(patch->new_name))
+		return error(_("affected file '%s' is beyond a symbolic link"),
+			     patch->new_name);
Why does this not kick in when deleting a file? If it is not OK to
add across a symlink, why is it OK to delete? IOW, why should this test
fail:
diff --git a/t/t4122-apply-symlink-inside.sh b/t/t4122-apply-symlink-inside.sh
index 0a8de4a..f03b604 100755
--- a/t/t4122-apply-symlink-inside.sh
+++ b/t/t4122-apply-symlink-inside.sh
@@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ test_expect_success SYMLINKS 'do not follow symbolic link (setup)' '
 	>arch/x86_64/dir/file &&
 	git add arch/x86_64/dir/file &&
 	git diff HEAD >add_file.patch &&
+	git diff -R HEAD >del_file.patch &&
 	git reset --hard &&
 	rm -fr arch/x86_64/dir &&
 
@@ -111,7 +112,11 @@ test_expect_success SYMLINKS 'do not follow symbolic link (existing)' '
 
 	test_must_fail git apply --cached add_file.patch 2>error-ct-file &&
 	test_i18ngrep "beyond a symbolic link" error-ct-file &&
-	test_must_fail git ls-files --error-unmatch arch/i386/dir
+	test_must_fail git ls-files --error-unmatch arch/i386/dir &&
+
+	>arch/i386/dir/file &&
+	test_must_fail git apply del_file.patch &&
+	test_path_is_file arch/i386/dir/file
 '
 
 test_done
+	test ! -e arch/x86_64/dir &&
+	test ! -e arch/i386/dir/file &&
Minor nit: use test_path_is_missing here (and elsewhere in the added
tests).

-Peff
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help