Re: [PATCH v5 10/16] reftable: handle null refnames in reftable_ref_record_equal
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2021-12-22 22:51:24
"Han-Wen Nienhuys via GitGitGadget" [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
From: Han-Wen Nienhuys <redacted> Spotted by Coverity. Signed-off-by: Han-Wen Nienhuys <redacted> --- reftable/record.c | 8 +++++--- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)diff --git a/reftable/record.c b/reftable/record.c index 8536bd03aa9..8bbcbff1e69 100644 --- a/reftable/record.c +++ b/reftable/record.c@@ -1154,9 +1154,11 @@ int reftable_ref_record_equal(struct reftable_ref_record *a, struct reftable_ref_record *b, int hash_size) { assert(hash_size > 0); - if (!(0 == strcmp(a->refname, b->refname) && - a->update_index == b->update_index && - a->value_type == b->value_type)) + if (!null_streq(a->refname, b->refname)) + return 0; + + if (a->update_index != b->update_index || + a->value_type != b->value_type) return 0;
The original assumed that the .refname member of these two records are filled, so strcmp() would have segfaulted if they were set to NULL, which equates to an empty string. I assume that this patch is to fix that and change nothing else? The original said: we'll make an early return with 0 unless all three conditions hold true; (1) names are the same, (2) update_index members are the same, and (3) value_type members are the same. We now say, "we return early with 0 if names are different", and "we also return early with 0 if update-index or value-type members are different". I just found the splitting into two separate statements looked different from the original, but they do mean the same, so it is OK. In fact, I think the !(A && B && C) is much less readable than (!A || !B || !C) in this case, so I am OK with the new version. Looking good. Thanks.