[pacman-dev] [PATCH] be_sync: avoid crashing on files in the root of a DB

[Dan McGee]

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Dave Reisner <d at falconindy.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 11:22:15AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
>> On 08/07/13 09:53, Dave Reisner wrote:
>> > As seen: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1297766
>>
>> I know it takes some time, but actually explaining what was seen in that
>> thread rather than just linking it will save everyone who looks at this
>> commit some time.
>>
>
> Fair enough... and who knows, maybe the bbs will go away some day ;)
>
>> > Signed-off-by: Dave Reisner <dreisner at archlinux.org>
>> > ---
>> >  lib/libalpm/be_sync.c | 7 +++++++
>> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/lib/libalpm/be_sync.c b/lib/libalpm/be_sync.c
>> > index feda6f5..f3e0a33 100644
>> > --- a/lib/libalpm/be_sync.c
>> > +++ b/lib/libalpm/be_sync.c
>> > @@ -561,6 +561,13 @@ static int sync_db_read(alpm_db_t *db, struct archive *archive,
>> >             return -1;
>> >     }
>> >
>> > +   if(filename == NULL) {
>> > +           /* A file exists outside of a subdirectory. This isn't a read error, so return
>> > +            * success and try to continue on. */
>> > +           _alpm_log(db->handle, ALPM_LOG_DEBUG, "unknown database file: %s\n", filename);
>>
>> Only a debug level statement?  I think a warning would be appropriate:
>>
>> warning: database "foo" contains unknown file: ...
>>
>> But need to check where that would actually print.
>>
>
> I copied this from the final else branch of the if/else tree in
> sync_db_read() which relegates messages about unknown entries to debug
> level as well. This was strictly for consistency -- if you'd prefer that
> we print both of these as warnings, I can make that change as part of
> this patch.

I think we made this a debug message to prevent it from being printed
waaaaaay too much- aka once per directory if for some reason we added
a few file to sync databases that older pacman versions didn't know
about.

It is probably OK to print the new one at warning level, but I
wouldn't mess with the older message.

-Dan