Re: input validation in receive-pack
From: Daniel Barkalow <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:44:02
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2016-06-15 · input validation in receive-pack · Martin Koegler <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: input validation in receive-pack · Junio C Hamano <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: input validation in receive-pack · Daniel Barkalow <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: input validation in receive-pack · Martin Koegler <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: input validation in receive-pack · Junio C Hamano <hidden>
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -816,9 +821,13 @@ struct ref_lock *lock_ref_sha1(const char *ref, const unsigned char *old_sha1) struct ref_lock *lock_any_ref_for_update(const char *ref, const unsigned char *old_sha1, int flags) { - if (check_ref_format(ref) == -1) + switch (check_ref_format(ref)) { + case CHECK_REF_FORMAT_ERROR: + case CHECK_REF_FORMAT_WILDCARD: return NULL; - return lock_ref_sha1_basic(ref, old_sha1, flags, NULL); + default: + return lock_ref_sha1_basic(ref, old_sha1, flags, NULL);
It might be wise to make "default" the return NULL case, and list the two okay cases explicitly, so it doesn't need to be changed if check_ref_format() someday gets additional "okay for some purposes" values. Aside from that, it looks good, except that builtin-send-pack.c and fast-import.c should probably use the symbolic constants, too. (All other callers only check whether the value is true or not). -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*