From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtpng3.m.smailru.net (smtpng3.m.smailru.net [94.100.177.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2517A491190 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 16:27:11 +0300 (MSK) References: <20201214153527.451373-1-void@tarantool.org> <06ed17cb-9758-33fc-25da-61db02d1f60b@tarantool.org> From: Sergey Nikiforov Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 16:27:09 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <06ed17cb-9758-33fc-25da-61db02d1f60b@tarantool.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH] lua/key_def: fix compare_with_key() part count check List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Vladislav Shpilevoy , tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org Cc: Alexander Turenko Hi! On 17.12.2020 1:34, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote: > Hi! > > On 14.12.2020 16:35, Sergey Nikiforov wrote: >> Added corresponding test >> >> Fixes: #5307 >> --- > > Please, try to follow the guidelines. > https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/wiki/Code-review-procedure > > I don't see the issue and branch links. Also I can't find the > branch in `git branch -a | grep 5307`. Also in the ticket's > webpage I don't see any links to the commit, which github usually > adds automatically. So I suspect you simply didn't push it anywhere. Of course I did not push my branches for the first batch of patches - because no one said I had to. I am new to github and Tarantool workflow, sorry. >> diff --git a/src/box/lua/key_def.c b/src/box/lua/key_def.c >> index a781aeff9..674891a85 100644 >> --- a/src/box/lua/key_def.c >> +++ b/src/box/lua/key_def.c >> @@ -362,6 +362,15 @@ lbox_key_def_compare_with_key(struct lua_State *L) >> size_t key_len; >> const char *key_end, *key = lbox_encode_tuple_on_gc(L, 3, &key_len); >> uint32_t part_count = mp_decode_array(&key); >> + >> + if (part_count > key_def->part_count) { >> + region_truncate(region, region_svp); >> + tuple_unref(tuple); >> + diag_set(ClientError, ER_KEY_PART_COUNT, >> + key_def->part_count, part_count); >> + return luaT_error(L); >> + } > > Why this check and the call below can't be all simply > replaces with box_key_def_validate_key() call? Because we need part_count later. With box_key_def_validate_key() we would have to call mp_decode_array() twice or add yet another parameter to box_key_def_validate_key(). Is that good idea? >> + >> if (key_validate_parts(key_def, key, part_count, true, >> &key_end) != 0) { >> region_truncate(region, region_svp);