Todd Zullinger <tmz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> brian m. carlson wrote:
> > r7 = f8467f2cee3bcead03e84cb51cf44f467a87457d (refs/remotes/origin/tags/tag3)
> > error: git-svn died of signal 11
> >
> > Doing the following three times, I had two crashes.
> >
> > (set -e; for i in $(seq 1 20); do (cd t && ./t9128-git-svn-cmd-branch.sh --verbose); done)
> >
> > I'm not really familiar with git svn or its internals, and I didn't see
> > anything recently on the list about this. Is this issue known?
The SVN bindings have been known to crash occasionally and I
can't really get my head around XS/Swig or Perl internals :/
Looking at the coredump, it seems to be around exit and
destruction (only Perl in the stacktrace, nothing from libsvn).
So I suspect it's a lifetime or ordering bug, testing a patch
below (slowly).
"branch" is also the only place we use SVN::Client->new these
days.
> For me, it's tests 3 and 4 which fail with the same error.
> I thought it was a failure in subversion or the perl
> bindings rather than git, so I simply disabled them in the
> Fedora builds. The Debian packages skip 9128 as well (and
> 9167, which fails similarly).
>
> I've seen the failures in t9141 from 'git svn branch' as
> well. I made a note to re-enable those tests after Jeff's
> work to make it easier to run with shell tracing enabled by
> default, but have not done so yet.
Just a guess, but it might be related to destruction order.
Running t9128 on a 32-bit Pentium-M, it took me 39 tries to
fail.
diff --git a/git-svn.perl b/git-svn.perl
index 76a75d0b3d..2ba14269bb 100755
--- a/git-svn.perl
+++ b/git-svn.perl
@@ -1200,6 +1200,11 @@ sub cmd_branch {
$ctx->copy($src, $rev, $dst)
unless $_dry_run;
+ # Release resources held by ctx before creating another SVN::Ra
+ # so destruction is orderly. This seems necessary Subversion 1.9.5
+ # to avoid segfaults.
+ $ctx = undef;
+
$gs->fetch_all;
}
I'll be looping t9128, t9141 and t9167 with that for a few
hours or day. Will report back sooner if it fails.
I'm on an ancient 32-bit system, I guess you guys encountered
it on 64-bit machines?
