On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 02:34:15PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> @@ -946,7 +948,7 @@ static int update_local_ref(struct ref *ref,
> if (oideq(&ref->old_oid, &ref->new_oid)) {
> if (verbosity > 0)
> display_ref_update(display_state, '=', _("[up to date]"), NULL,
> - remote, ref->name, summary_width);
> + remote_ref->name, ref->name, summary_width);
> return 0;
> }
Here (and in other hunks) we now dereference remote_ref unconditionally.
But in existing parts of the code, we guard against remote_ref being
NULL. E.g., later on:
if (!current || !updated) {
const char *msg;
const char *what;
int r;
/*
* Nicely describe the new ref we're fetching.
* Base this on the remote's ref name, as it's
* more likely to follow a standard layout.
*/
const char *name = remote_ref ? remote_ref->name : "";
[...]
I'm not sure if the old code was being overly defensive, or if the new
code is ripe for a segfault. But it's probably worth looking into (it
was noticed by Coverity).
Looking at the caller, it is always store_update_refs() which passes its
own "rm", a pointer iterating over ref_map. And it should always be
non-NULL, since that's the loop condition.
So I think your code is fine, but you might want to double-check my
logic. (And it may be worth cleaning up the existing redundant check to
prevent confusion).
-Peff
