Am 06.09.19 um 09:13 schrieb Jeff King: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 09:55:55PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote: > >> Add a function for accessing the ID of the object referenced by a tag >> safely, i.e. without causing a segfault when encountering a broken tag >> where ->tagged is NULL. > > This approach seems to pretty reasonable. As somebody who's been > thinking about this, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on: > > https://public-inbox.org/git/20190906065606.gc5...@sigill.intra.peff.net/ > > which _in theory_ means tag->tagged would never be NULL (we'd catch it > at the parsing stage and consider that an error). But we'd still > potentially want to protect ourselves as you do here for code paths > which don't necessarily check the parse result.
A tag referencing an unknown object sounds strange to me. I imagine we might get such a thing when the referenced object is lost (broken repo) or purpose-built from an attacker. Could such a tag still be used for anything? Are there other possible causes? I suspect the answer to both questions is "no", and then it makes sense to reject it as early as possible. But I may be missing something. In particular I'm confused by these patches from February 2008, which seem to suggest that such tags should not be reported in all cases, but sometimes just silently ignored: 9684afd967 revision.c: handle tag->tagged == NULL cc36934791 process_tag: handle tag->tagged == NULL 24e8a3c946 deref_tag: handle tag->tagged = NULL So is there perhaps a use case for them after all? Leaving that aside: The parsed flag means we saw and checked the object already. That is true also for broken objects. Clearing the flag can cause the same error to be reported multiple times. How about setting it at the start as before, but returning -1 from parse_tag_buffer() if .parsed == 1 && .tagged == NULL? René