On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 01:27:14PM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote: > The `FOLLOW_SYMLINKS` flag was added to the dir-iterator API in > fa1da7d2ee (dir-iterator: add flags parameter to dir_iterator_begin, > 2019-07-10) in order to follow symbolic links while traversing through a > directory. > > `FOLLOW_SYMLINKS` gained its first caller in ff7ccc8c9a (clone: use > dir-iterator to avoid explicit dir traversal, 2019-07-10), but it was > subsequently removed in 6f054f9fb3 (builtin/clone.c: disallow `--local` > clones with symlinks, 2022-07-28). > > Since then, we've held on to the code for `DIR_ITERATOR_FOLLOW_SYMLINKS` > in the name of making minimally invasive changes during a security > embargo. > > In fact, we even changed the dir-iterator API in bffc762f87 > (dir-iterator: prevent top-level symlinks without FOLLOW_SYMLINKS, > 2023-01-24) without having any non-test callers of that flag. > > Now that we're past those security embargo(s), let's finalize our > cleanup of the `DIR_ITERATOR_FOLLOW_SYMLINKS` code and remove its > implementation since there are no remaining callers. Thanks for following up on this. I think it's an obviously good direction, and the patch looks sensible. It's hard to grep for --follow-symlinks or FOLLOW_SYMLINKS to make sure you got everything, just because there are other unrelated features that use that name. ;) But I think you got all the relevant spots. The only thing I wondered is whether we could clean up any of the test setup. Specifically, "dir5" does not seem to be used in the tests, and everything passes with: diff --git a/t/t0066-dir-iterator.sh b/t/t0066-dir-iterator.sh index 4ed3136b00..1f3e070ec2 100755 --- a/t/t0066-dir-iterator.sh +++ b/t/t0066-dir-iterator.sh @@ -106,12 +106,6 @@ test_expect_success SYMLINKS 'setup dirs with symlinks' ' ln -s d dir4/a/e && ln -s ../b dir4/a/f && - mkdir -p dir5/a/b && - mkdir -p dir5/a/c && - ln -s ../c dir5/a/b/d && - ln -s ../ dir5/a/b/e && - ln -s ../../ dir5/a/b/f && - ln -s dir4 dir6 ' But...that is true even before your patch. dir5 is not mentioned in any of the expected output, even in fa1da7d2ee (dir-iterator: add flags parameter to dir_iterator_begin, 2019-07-10) where it was added. Was it just vestigial? Or is it somehow important that it is _not_ in the output? I didn't dig, and even if it can be removed, it would probably make sense to do it separately from your patch anyway. -Peff
