Jeff King writes:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 01:40:12PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Jeff King writes:
>>
>> > But wouldn't we still fail writing "foo/bar" at that point if "foo" is a
>> > regular file (again, we should never do this, but that is the point of
>> > the test).
>>
>> The poin
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 01:40:12PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > But wouldn't we still fail writing "foo/bar" at that point if "foo" is a
> > regular file (again, we should never do this, but that is the point of
> > the test).
>
> The point of the test is not to create
Jeff King writes:
> But wouldn't we still fail writing "foo/bar" at that point if "foo" is a
> regular file (again, we should never do this, but that is the point of
> the test).
The point of the test is not to create foo, whether it is a symlink
or an emulating regular file, in the first place.
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 01:23:15PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > Right, I do not think these tests will _fail_ when the filesystem does
> > not support symlinks. But nor are they actually testing anything
> > interesting. They would pass on such a system even without you
Jeff King writes:
> Right, I do not think these tests will _fail_ when the filesystem does
> not support symlinks. But nor are they actually testing anything
> interesting. They would pass on such a system even without your patch,
> as we would fail to apply even the symlink creation part of the
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 12:23:28PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > By the way, does this patch (and the other symlink-escape ones) need to
> > be marked with the SYMLINKS prereq? For a pure-index application, it
> > should work anywhere, but I have a feeling that this "git apply patch"
> > may tr
Jeff King writes:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:27:27PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> +test_expect_failure 'symlink escape via ..' '
>> +{
>> +mkpatch_symlink tmp .. &&
>> +mkpatch_add tmp/foo ../foo
>> +} >patch &&
>> +test_must_fail git apply patch &&
>> +
If I am allowed to to some load thinking:
The commit msh header says:
reject input that touches outside $cwd
The commit message says:
By default, a patch that affects outside the working area
And the new command line option is this:
--unsafe-paths
(Which may be a good choice to pretend peo
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:27:27PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> +test_expect_failure 'symlink escape via ..' '
> + {
> + mkpatch_symlink tmp .. &&
> + mkpatch_add tmp/foo ../foo
> + } >patch &&
> + test_must_fail git apply patch &&
> + test_path_is_missing
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:27:27PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> By default, a patch that affects outside the working area is
> rejected as a mistake (or a mischief); Git itself does not create
> such a patch, unless the user bends backwards and specifies a
> non-standard prefix to "git diff" and
By default, a patch that affects outside the working area is
rejected as a mistake (or a mischief); Git itself does not create
such a patch, unless the user bends backwards and specifies a
non-standard prefix to "git diff" and friends.
When `git apply` is used without either `--index` or `--cached
11 matches
Mail list logo
