Thread (20 messages) 20 messages, 5 authors, 2020-06-04

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] shallow.c: use '{commit,rollback}_shallow_file'

From: Taylor Blau <hidden>
Date: 2020-06-03 22:14:57

Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)

On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 01:51:51PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Taylor Blau wrote:
quoted
Ah, this only sort of has to do with the object cache. In
'parse_commit_buffer()' we stop parsing parents in the case that the
repository is shallow (this goes back to 7f3140cd23 (git repack: keep
commits hidden by a graft, 2009-07-23)).
Ah, good analysis.  (In fact, the behavior is older: it's from
5da5c8f4cf4 (Teach parse_commit_buffer about grafting., 2005-07-30).)
So this is additional "cached" data that needs to be invalidated by
reset_repository_shallow.

So the question is, what other information falls into that category?

[...]
quoted
--- a/shallow.c
+++ b/shallow.c
@@ -90,6 +90,9 @@ static void reset_repository_shallow(struct repository *r)
 {
 	r->parsed_objects->is_shallow = -1;
 	stat_validity_clear(r->parsed_objects->shallow_stat);
+
(nit: the above two lines wouldn't be needed if r->parsed_objects is
being thrown away.)
Right, thanks. I don't think that it matters since you point out a
legitimate issue with dangling references, but serves me right for
working on this so late at night ;-).
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
quoted
+	parsed_object_pool_clear(r->parsed_objects);
+	r->parsed_objects = parsed_object_pool_new();
 }
Shallows don't affect the ref store.  They only affect object walks.
So r->parsed_objects does seem like the only place that could be
affected.

That said, with this change I'd worry about use-after-free from any
existing references to objects in the pool.

Stepping back, what I think I would like to see is to *not* have
grafts and shallow state affect the in-memory persisted parsed
objects.  Instead, act as an overlay in accessors that traverse over
them.

Lacking that, I like the idea of a "dirty bit" that gets written as
soon as we have started lying in the parsed object pool.  Something
like this.  What do you think?
diff --git i/commit-graph.c w/commit-graph.c
index 2ff042fbf4f..84b49ce903b 100644
--- i/commit-graph.c
+++ w/commit-graph.c
@@ -149,7 +149,8 @@ static int commit_graph_compatible(struct repository *r)
 	}

 	prepare_commit_graft(r);
-	if (r->parsed_objects && r->parsed_objects->grafts_nr)
+	if (r->parsed_objects &&
+	    (r->parsed_objects->grafts_nr || r->parsed_objects->substituted_parent))
This is a little tricky. Why would we set substituted_parent without
also incrementing grafts_nr? That seems like the real bug here: if we
incremented grafts_nr, then we would return a non-zero value from
'commit_graph_compatible' and rightly stop even without this sticky-bit.

I don't quite understand this myself. If it's an oversight, it's a
remarkably long-lived one. Do you have a better sense of this?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
 		return 0;
 	if (is_repository_shallow(r))
 		return 0;
diff --git i/commit.c w/commit.c
index 87686a7055b..762f09e53ae 100644
--- i/commit.c
+++ w/commit.c
@@ -423,6 +423,8 @@ int parse_commit_buffer(struct repository *r, struct commit *item, const void *b
 	pptr = &item->parents;

 	graft = lookup_commit_graft(r, &item->object.oid);
+	if (graft)
+		r->parsed_objects->substituted_parent = 1;
 	while (bufptr + parent_entry_len < tail && !memcmp(bufptr, "parent ", 7)) {
 		struct commit *new_parent;
@@ -447,6 +449,7 @@ int parse_commit_buffer(struct repository *r, struct commit *item, const void *b
 	if (graft) {
 		int i;
 		struct commit *new_parent;
+
Nit: unnecessary whitespace change, but I doubt it really matters much.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
 		for (i = 0; i < graft->nr_parent; i++) {
 			new_parent = lookup_commit(r,
 						   &graft->parent[i]);
diff --git i/object.h w/object.h
index b22328b8383..db02fdcd6b2 100644
--- i/object.h
+++ w/object.h
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ struct parsed_object_pool {
 	char *alternate_shallow_file;

 	int commit_graft_prepared;
+	int substituted_parent;

 	struct buffer_slab *buffer_slab;
 };
Thanks,
Jonathan
Thanks,
Taylor
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help