Re: [PATCH 19/29] refs: don't dereference on rename
From: Michael Haggerty <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-16 02:19:06
On 04/30/2016 01:21 AM, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2016-04-29 at 09:38 +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:quoted
On 04/27/2016 08:55 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:quoted
Michael Haggerty [off-list ref] writes:quoted
@@ -2380,8 +2381,8 @@ int rename_ref(const char *oldrefname,const char *newrefname, const char *logms goto rollback; } - if (!read_ref_full(newrefname, RESOLVE_REF_READING, sha1, NULL) && - delete_ref(newrefname, sha1, REF_NODEREF)) { + if (!read_ref_full(newrefname, resolve_flags, sha1, NULL) && + delete_ref(newrefname, NULL, REF_NODEREF)) {Could you explain s/sha1/NULL/ here in the proposed log message?Good question. Passing sha1 to delete_ref() doesn't add any safety, because the same sha1 was just read a moment before, and it is not used for anything else. So the check only protects us from a concurrent update to newrefname between the call to read_ref_full() and the call to delete_ref(). But such a race is indistinguishable from the case that a modification to newrefname happens just before the call to read_ref_full(), which would have the same outcome as the new code. So the "sha1" check only adds ways for the rename() to fail in situations where nothing harmful would have happened anyway. That being said, this is a very unlikely race, and I don't think it matters much either way. In any case, the change s/sha1/NULL/ here seems orthogonal to the rest of the patch. David, you wrote the original version of this patch. Am I overlooking something?I think I might have been handling some weird case related to symbolic refs, but I don't recall the details. Your argument seems right to me.
Doh, of course. I should have just changed it back to `sha1` and run the test suite, then I would have seen the failure... The point is that `read_ref_full()` is now called with `RESOLVE_REF_NO_RECURSE` turned on. So if `newrefname` is a symbolic reference, then `read_ref_full()` sets `sha1` to zeros. But the pre-check for `delete_ref()` compares `old_sha1` to the recursively resolved value of the reference, so that check would fail. (In fact, `ref_transaction_delete()` refuses even to add the deletion to the transaction if `old_sha1` is zeros, so it doesn't even get that far.) So for shallow technical reasons we can't pass `sha1` to `delete_ref()` anymore, and for the deeper reasons discussed in this thread that's not a problem. I'll document this in v2 of this patch. Michael