Web lists-archives.com

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/7] dir.c: fix off-by-one error in match_pathspec_item

On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 01:06:30PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:

> > There are other similar trailing-slash matches in that function, but I'm
> > not sure of all the cases in which they're used. I don't know if any of
> > those would need similar treatment (sorry for being vague; I expect I'd
> > need a few hours to dig into how the pathspec code actually works, and I
> > don't have that today).
> If it'd only take you a few hours, then you're a lot faster than me.
> It took me a while to start wrapping my head around it.

OK, I was being overly optimistic. :)

> The other trailing-slash matches in the function are all correct,
> according to the testsuite.  (I'm not sure I like the
> DO_MATCH_DIRECTORY stuff, but it is encoded in tests and backward
> compatibility is important.)  In particular, changing the earlier code
> to have the same offset trick would make it claim that e.g. either
> "a/b" or "a/b/" as names match unconditionally against "a/b/c" as a
> pathspec.  We need it to be conditional: we only want that to be
> considered a match when checking whether we want to recurse into the
> directory for other matches, not when checking whether the directory
> itself matches the pathspec.  Thus, it should be behind a separate
> flag, in a subsequent check, which is what this series does (namely

OK, that makes some sense to me.

> To be more precise, here is how a matrix of pathnames and pathspecs
> would be treated by match_pathspec_item(), where I am abbreviating
>                                Pathspecs
>                 |    a/b    |    a/b/    |   a/b/c
>           ------+-----------+------------+-----------
>           a/b   |  EXACT    | RECURSIVE  |  LEADING[3]
>   Names   a/b/  |  EXACT[1] |  EXACT     |  LEADING[2]
>           a/b/c | RECURSIVE | RECURSIVE  |  EXACT
> [1] Only if DO_MATCH_DIRECTORY is passed.  Otherwise,
>     this is NOT a match at all.
> [2] Only if DO_MATCH_LEADING_PATHSPEC is passed,
>     after applying this series.  Otherwise, not a match
>     at all.
> [3] Without the fix in this thread that you highlighted,
>     and assuming we apply patch 7, this would actually
>     mistakenly return RECURSIVE.
> Now for a separate question: How much of the above would you like
> added to the commit message...or even as a comment in the code to make
> it clearer to other folks trying to make sense of it?

That table seems quite illuminating to me. It's hard to pick out all the
special-cases from the code, or what they're _supposed_ to be doing. I
think it makes sense as a code comment.


PS I'm going to be on a 3-week vacation starting tomorrow, so apologies
   in advance for ignoring any follow-ups.