Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2016, #05; Thu, 16)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> On 19 Jun 2016, at 09:59, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On 06/18/2016 12:05 AM, Lars Schneider wrote:
>> 
>>> On 17 Jun 2016, at 05:20, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ...
>>> 
>>> * mh/split-under-lock (2016-05-13) 33 commits
>>> ...
>>> 
>>> Further preparatory work on the refs API before the pluggable
>>> backend series can land.
>>> 
>>> Will merge to 'master'.
>> 
>> This topic seems break two git-p4 tests (t9801 and t9803) on next:
>> https://travis-ci.org/git/git/jobs/137333785
>> 
>> According to git bisect the commit "ref_transaction_update(): 
>> check refname_is_safe() at a minimum" (3da1f3) introduces the problem: 
>> https://s3.amazonaws.com/archive.travis-ci.org/jobs/138457628/log.txt
>> (scroll all the way down to see the bisecting)
>> 
>> - Lars
>> 
> 
> Lars,
> 
> According to [1], something in that test seems to have been trying to run
> 
>    git update-ref -d git-p4-tmp/6
> 
> Similarly in the other failed test.
> 
> Because `update-ref` doesn't do DWIM for reference names, this is *not*
> expanded to `refs/heads/git-p4-tmp/6` or something. Previously this
> command would have quietly failed to do anything. But after
> "ref_transaction_update(): check refname_is_safe() at a minimum", `git
> update-ref` notices that `git/p4/tmp/6` is not a safe refname (according
> to `refname_is_safe()` [2]), and correctly fails with an error message.

All errors seem to be related to the Git-P4 branch import. I am no expert
in that area because the branch import never worked for me (and I am puzzled
to some extend how it is supposed to work given the differences how branches
work in Git and P4).

This is the offending call:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/05219a1276341e72d8082d76b7f5ed394b7437a4/git-p4.py#L3464

This is only a cleanup call and we could make all tests work if we remove the
cleanup and also the "cleanup successful check":
https://github.com/git/git/blob/05219a1276341e72d8082d76b7f5ed394b7437a4/t/t9801-git-p4-branch.sh#L303
https://github.com/git/git/blob/05219a1276341e72d8082d76b7f5ed394b7437a4/t/t9801-git-p4-branch.sh#L355

I am a bit surprised that we do not see other errors given the fact 
that the branch name is clearly invalid:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/05219a1276341e72d8082d76b7f5ed394b7437a4/t/t9803-git-p4-shell-metachars.sh#L102

I see two ways to proceed:

(1) We remove the cleanup.

(2) We sanitize the branch names (e.g. by removing invalid characters).
@Michael: Is there a function to "sanitize" a given branch name already?

Option 1 is trivial and option 2 (my preference) shouldn't be too hard. 
But maybe Luke has some insights since he added the "branch with shell char" 
test in 52a4880.


> Even before this change, Git didn't allow such references to be created
> or updated. So I think this test failure is revealing an error in `git
> p4 clone` that went undetected before this change.
> 
> Please let me know whether you agree. If so, it is realistic to fix
> `git-p4` promptly? This failure is currently blocking
> mh/split-under-lock, so if `git-p4` can't be fixed, then I'd have to
> either disable t9801 and t9803 in this patch series, or omit the
> `refname_is_safe()` check.
I am looking into option 2.

> 
> In the interest of backwards compatibility, I considered making `git
> update-ref -d` continue to fail silently for NOOP operations with unsafe
> refnames (one of the requirements being that no old_oid is specified).
> But I think that would be giving the wrong signal to scripts that are
> doing something that is invalid but pausible, like trying to delete the
> reference `../$(basename $PWD)/refs/heads/foo`. Such scripts would be
> misled into thinking the deletion was successful. And yet treating
> plausibly-sensible requests differently than obviously bogus requests
> seems like a path to madness.
Agreed!

Cheers,
Lars--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]