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. -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
