Fix a few split-index bugs #1497
+72
−18
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -1003,4 +1003,41 @@ test_expect_success !UNICODE_COMPOSITION_SENSITIVE 'Unicode nfc/nfd' ' | |
| egrep "^event: nfd/d_${utf8_nfc}/?$" ./unicode.trace | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. On the Git mailing list, Jeff Hostetler wrote (reply to this): On 3/22/23 12:00 PM, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> > This commit adds a new test case that demonstrates a bug in the
> split-index code that is triggered under certain circumstances when the
> FSMonitor is enabled, and its symptom manifests in the form of one of
> the following error messages:
> > BUG: fsmonitor.c:20: fsmonitor_dirty has more entries than the index (2 > 1)
> > BUG: unpack-trees.c:776: pos <n> doesn't point to the first entry of <dir>/ in index
> > error: invalid path ''
> error: The following untracked working tree files would be overwritten by reset:
> initial.t
> > Which of these error messages appears depends on timing-dependent
> conditions.
> > Technically the root cause lies with a bug in the split-index code that
> has nothing to do with FSMonitor, but for the sake of this new test case
> it was the easiest way to trigger the bug.
> > The bug is this: Under specific conditions, Git needs to skip writing
> the "link" extension (which is the index extension containing the
> information pertaining to the split-index). To do that, the `base_oid`
> attribute of the `split_index` structure in the in-memory index is
> zeroed out, and `do_write_index()` specifically checks for a "null"
> `base_oid` to understand that the "link" extension should not be
> written. However, this violates the consistency of the in-memory index
> structure, but that does not cause problems in most cases because the
> process exits without using the in-memory index structure anymore,
> anyway.
> > But: _When_ the in-memory index is still used (which is the case e.g. in
> `git rebase`), subsequent writes of `the_index` are at risk of writing
> out a bogus index file, one that _should_ have a "link" extension but
> does not. In many cases, the `SPLIT_INDEX_ORDERED` flag _happens_ to be
> set for subsequent writes, forcing the shared index to be written, which
> re-initializes `base_oid` to a non-bogus state, and all is good.
> > When it is _not_ set, however, all kinds of mayhem ensue, resulting in
> above-mentioned error messages, and often enough putting worktrees in a
> totally broken state where the only recourse is to manually delete the
> `index` and the `index.lock` files and then call `git reset` manually.
> Not something to ask users to do.
> > The reason why it is comparatively easy to trigger the bug with
> FSMonitor is that there is _another_ bug in the FSMonitor code:
> `mark_fsmonitor_valid()` sets `cache_changed` to 1, i.e. treating that
> variable as a Boolean. But it is a bit field, and 1 happens to be the
> `SOMETHING_CHANGED` bit that forces the "link" extension to be skipped
> when writing the index, among other things.
> > "Comparatively easy" is a relative term in this context, for sure. The
> essence of how the new test case triggers the bug is as following:
> > 1. The `git rebase` invocation will first reset the worktree to
> a commit that contains only the `one.t` file, and then execute a
> rebase script that starts with the following commands (commit hashes
> skipped):
> > label onto
> > reset initial
> pick two
> label two
> > reset two
> pick three
> [...]
> > 2. Before executing the `label` command, a split index is written, as
> well as the shared index.
> > 3. The `reset initial` command in the rebase script writes out a new
> split index but skips writing the shared index, as intended.
> > 4. The `pick two` command updates the worktree and refreshes the index,
> marking the `two.t` entry as valid via the FSMonitor, which sets the
> `SOMETHING_CHANGED` bit in `cache_changed`, which in turn causes the
> `base_oid` attribute to be zeroed out and a full (non-split) index
> to be written (making sure _not_ to write the "link" extension).
> > 5. Now, the `reset two` command will leave the worktree alone, but
> still write out a new split index, not writing the shared index
> (because `base_oid` is still zeroed out, and there is no index entry
> update requiring it to be written, either).
> > 6. When it is turn to run `pick three`, the index is read, but it is
> too short: It only contains a single entry when there should be two,
> because the "link" extension is missing from the written-out index
> file.
> > There are three bugs at play, actually, which will be fixed over the
> course of the next commits:
> > - The `base_oid` attribute should not be zeroed out to indicate when
> the "link" extension should not be written, as it puts the in-memory
> index structure into an inconsistent state.
> > - The FSMonitor should not overwrite bits in `cache_changed`.
> > - The `unpack_trees()` function tries to reuse the `split_index`
> structure from the source index, if any, but does not propagate the
> `SPLIT_INDEX_ORDERED` flag.
> > While a fix for the second bug would let this test case pass, there are
> other conditions where the `SOMETHING_CHANGED` bit is set. Therefore,
> the bug that most crucially needs to be fixed is the first one.
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Very well said. Thank you!!!
> ---
> t/t7527-builtin-fsmonitor.sh | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)
> > diff --git a/t/t7527-builtin-fsmonitor.sh b/t/t7527-builtin-fsmonitor.sh
> index d419085379c..cbafdd69602 100755
> --- a/t/t7527-builtin-fsmonitor.sh
> +++ b/t/t7527-builtin-fsmonitor.sh
> @@ -1003,4 +1003,41 @@ test_expect_success !UNICODE_COMPOSITION_SENSITIVE 'Unicode nfc/nfd' '
> egrep "^event: nfd/d_${utf8_nfc}/?$" ./unicode.trace
> '
> > +test_expect_failure 'split-index and FSMonitor work well together' '
> + git init split-index &&
> + test_when_finished "git -C \"$PWD/split-index\" \
> + fsmonitor--daemon stop" &&
> + (
> + cd split-index &&
> + git config core.splitIndex true &&
> + # force split-index in most cases
> + git config splitIndex.maxPercentChange 99 &&
> + git config core.fsmonitor true &&
> +
> + # Create the following commit topology:
> + #
> + # * merge three
> + # |\
> + # | * three
> + # * | merge two
> + # |\|
> + # | * two
> + # * | one
> + # |/
> + # * 5a5efd7 initial
> +
> + test_commit initial &&
> + test_commit two &&
> + test_commit three &&
> + git reset --hard initial &&
> + test_commit one &&
> + test_tick &&
> + git merge two &&
> + test_tick &&
> + git merge three &&
> +
> + git rebase --force-rebase -r one
> + )
> +'
> +
> test_done |
||
| ' | ||
|
|
||
| test_expect_success 'split-index and FSMonitor work well together' ' | ||
| git init split-index && | ||
| test_when_finished "git -C \"$PWD/split-index\" \ | ||
| fsmonitor--daemon stop" && | ||
| ( | ||
| cd split-index && | ||
| git config core.splitIndex true && | ||
| # force split-index in most cases | ||
| git config splitIndex.maxPercentChange 99 && | ||
| git config core.fsmonitor true && | ||
|
|
||
| # Create the following commit topology: | ||
| # | ||
| # * merge three | ||
| # |\ | ||
| # | * three | ||
| # * | merge two | ||
| # |\| | ||
| # | * two | ||
| # * | one | ||
| # |/ | ||
| # * 5a5efd7 initial | ||
|
|
||
| test_commit initial && | ||
| test_commit two && | ||
| test_commit three && | ||
| git reset --hard initial && | ||
| test_commit one && | ||
| test_tick && | ||
| git merge two && | ||
| test_tick && | ||
| git merge three && | ||
|
|
||
| git rebase --force-rebase -r one | ||
| ) | ||
| ' | ||
|
|
||
| test_done | ||
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On the Git mailing list, Jeff Hostetler wrote (reply to this):
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):