On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 7:13 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> wrote: > On 05/17/2011 06:34 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote: >> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:02 PM, <cmpil...@apache.org> wrote: >>> URL: >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_repos/reporter.c?rev=1104309&r1=1104308&r2=1104309&view=diff >>> ============================================================================== >>> --- subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_repos/reporter.c (original) >>> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_repos/reporter.c Tue May 17 15:02:05 >>> 2011 >>> @@ -860,9 +860,23 @@ update_entry(report_baton_t *b, svn_revn >>> { >>> int distance = svn_fs_compare_ids(s_entry->id, t_entry->id); >>> if (distance == 0 && !any_path_info(b, e_path) >>> - && (!info || (!info->start_empty && !info->lock_token)) >>> && (requested_depth <= wc_depth || t_entry->kind == >>> svn_node_file)) >>> - return SVN_NO_ERROR; >>> + { >>> + if (!info) >>> + return SVN_NO_ERROR; >>> + >>> + if (!info->start_empty) >>> + { >>> + svn_lock_t *lock; >>> + >>> + if (!info->lock_token) >>> + return SVN_NO_ERROR; >>> + >>> + SVN_ERR(svn_fs_get_lock(&lock, b->repos->fs, t_path, pool)); >> >> Could t_path be NULL here (if only if a "malicious client" crafts a >> special request)? >> >> The docstring of this function mentions that T_ENTRY and T_PATH may be >> NULL. In this block we are sure that T_ENTRY is non-null, but what >> about T_PATH? > > I think T_ENTRY and T_PATH come as a pair, either both NULL or both not.
Yes, it would seem so. And I've followed the callers of update_entry a bit to assure myself that T_PATH can't be NULL (or if it would be, earlier code would already have failed). Just making sure :-). Thanks for fixing this issue. -- Johan
