Repository navigation
tree-walk: fix mode and embedded NUL handling in get_tree_entry_follow_symlinks - #2475
inanna-malick wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
…w_symlinks In get_tree_entry_follow_symlinks(), fix three edge cases when resolving paths and symlink targets: 1. Initialize `*mode = 0` at entry and set `*mode = S_IFDIR` when an empty path (`name = ""`) resolves directly to the root tree, rather than leaving `*mode` uninitialized when returning `FOUND`. 2. When a symlink target such as `..` resolves back to a parent directory and leaves `namebuf` empty (`namebuf.buf[0] == '\0'`), set `*mode = S_IFDIR` instead of leaving the symlink's `S_IFLNK` mode in `*mode`. 3. When reading a symlink blob, check for embedded NUL bytes with `memchr(contents, '\0', link_len)` and treat such a symlink as `DANGLING_SYMLINK`. Splicing a target containing an embedded NUL into `namebuf` previously caused `strchr(namebuf.buf, '/')` to stop at the NUL and silently discard any remaining path components after the symlink. Found via agent swarm driven property tests using https://recursion.wtf/posts/agents-and-property-tests/ Signed-off-by: Inanna Malick <inanna@recursion.wtf>
Welcome to GitGitGadgetHi @inanna-malick, and welcome to GitGitGadget, the GitHub App to send patch series to the Git mailing list from GitHub Pull Requests. Please make sure that either:
You can CC potential reviewers by adding a footer to the PR description with the following syntax: NOTE: DO NOT copy/paste your CC list from a previous GGG PR's description, Also, it is a good idea to review the commit messages one last time, as the Git project expects them in a quite specific form:
It is in general a good idea to await the automated test ("Checks") in this Pull Request before contributing the patches, e.g. to avoid trivial issues such as unportable code. Contributing the patchesBefore you can contribute the patches, your GitHub username needs to be added to the list of permitted users. Any already-permitted user can do that, by adding a comment to your PR of the form Both the person who commented An alternative is the channel Once on the list of permitted usernames, you can contribute the patches to the Git mailing list by adding a PR comment If you want to see what email(s) would be sent for a After you submit, GitGitGadget will respond with another comment that contains the link to the cover letter mail in the Git mailing list archive. Please make sure to monitor the discussion in that thread and to address comments and suggestions (while the comments and suggestions will be mirrored into the PR by GitGitGadget, you will still want to reply via mail). If you do not want to subscribe to the Git mailing list just to be able to respond to a mail, you can download the mbox from the Git mailing list archive (click the curl -g --user "<EMailAddress>:<Password>" \
--url "imaps://imap.gmail.com/INBOX" -T /path/to/raw.txtTo iterate on your change, i.e. send a revised patch or patch series, you will first want to (force-)push to the same branch. You probably also want to modify your Pull Request description (or title). It is a good idea to summarize the revision by adding something like this to the cover letter (read: by editing the first comment on the PR, i.e. the PR description): To send a new iteration, just add another PR comment with the contents: Need help?New contributors who want advice are encouraged to join git-mentoring@googlegroups.com, where volunteers who regularly contribute to Git are willing to answer newbie questions, give advice, or otherwise provide mentoring to interested contributors. You must join in order to post or view messages, but anyone can join. You may also be able to find help in real time in the developer IRC channel, |
|
There is an issue in commit 88c4407:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟡 Changes recommended
Regression tests are missing for embedded-NUL symlink targets and directory object modes under --follow-symlinks, leaving these behavior changes unguarded.
1 open issue
What changed in this PR
This PR fixes edge cases in Git’s tree-path resolution when following symlinks, ensuring correct directory modes and rejecting malformed symlink targets.
Changes:
- Initializes the output mode and returns
S_IFDIRwhen an empty path resolves to the root tree. - Returns
S_IFDIRwhen a symlink resolves back to a parent directory. - Treats symlink blobs containing embedded NUL bytes as dangling instead of silently truncating the path.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
tree-walk.c |
Corrects directory modes and rejects embedded-NUL symlink targets in get_tree_entry_follow_symlinks(). |
Review effort: Balanced
| if (memchr(contents, '\0', link_len)) { | ||
| free(contents); | ||
| goto done; | ||
| } |

In
get_tree_entry_follow_symlinks(), fix three edge cases when resolving paths and symlink targets:*mode = 0at entry and set*mode = S_IFDIRwhen an empty path (name = "") resolves directly to the root tree, rather than leaving*modeuninitialized when returningFOUND...resolves back to a parent directory and leavesnamebufempty (namebuf.buf[0] == '\0'), set*mode = S_IFDIRinstead of leaving the symlink'sS_IFLNKmode in*mode.memchr(contents, '\0', link_len)and treat such a symlink asDANGLING_SYMLINK. Splicing a target containing an embedded NUL intonamebufpreviously causedstrchr(namebuf.buf, '/')to stop at the NUL and silently discard any remaining path components after the symlink.Found via agent swarm driven property tests using https://recursion.wtf/posts/agents-and-property-tests/