Re: Bug in fetch-pack.c, please confirm

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mar 15, 2015, at 00:30, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

"Kyle J. McKay" <mackyle@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

Hi guys,

So I was looking at fetch-pack.c (from master @ 52cae643, but I think
it's the same everywhere):

...
-		hashcpy(ref->new_sha1, local);
+		hashcpy(ref->new_sha1, o->sha1);
		if (!args->verbose)
			continue;
		fprintf(stderr,
			"already have %s (%s)\n", sha1_to_hex(remote),
			ref->name);
	}
	return retval;
---

One thing I wonder is if this hashcpy() is doing anything useful,
though.  Is ref->new_sha1 used after we are done in this codepath,
or is the reason nobody noticed it is because it does not matter
whatever garbage is in that field nobody looks at it?

My thoughts exactly. hence the "please confirm" request. I'm not familiar enough with the fetch pack code to know the answer off the top of my head. I was hoping someone else who's been in the fetch pack code recently (*Hi Peff*) might just already know. :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]