Fwiw, I see the problem on Linux. It hay nothing to do with overzealos antimalware, it is a regression and it has been well documented. > Am 09.12.2019 um 17:20 schrieb Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx>: > > Hi, > >> On Mon, 9 Dec 2019, Marc Balmer wrote: >> >> I am not familiar with the source code, so I can not send in that >> revert. I can, however, say that I am grateful to whomever does it ;) > > I am against reverting the change without knowing the root cause. > > The recent reporter only compared Git for Windows v2.19.0 vs v2.20.1, > which is _quite_ a big difference. > > For what I know, the problem might be a change in the MSYS2 runtime that > is mistaken by some malware for malicious code (we did introduce some code > to emulate Ctrl+C in MinTTY which injects a remote thread and executes > ExitProcess() there, which might very well be construed as an attack, even > if it is actually very much desired behavior). > > These segmentation faults in `git subtree` on Windows have traditionally > been _all_ because of overzealous anti-malware. > > So first, a much more fine-grained analysis would be required, e.g. > comparing v2.20.1 against v2.20.0, then copying _just_ the `git-subtree` > file from a working into a non-working version (or vice versa; I would > highly recommend using the portable versions for such side-by side > comparison). > > Ciao, > Johannes > >> >> - Marc >> >> >>>> Am 09.12.2019 um 15:18 schrieb Strain, Roger L. <roger.strain@xxxxxxxx>: >>> >>> As I said, I'm using a custom script here. I don't know if anybody else >>> benefited from the change and hasn't said anything, but I won't object >>> to someone submitting that revert. >>> >>> -- >>> Roger >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Marc Balmer <marc@xxxxxxx> >>> To: "Strain, Roger L." <roger.strain@xxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: ns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <ns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx < >>> git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx < >>> Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx>, gitster@xxxxxxxxx <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>, >>> pclouds@xxxxxxxxx <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Subject: Re: Regression in git-subtree.sh, introduced in 2.20.1, after >>> 315a84f9aa0e2e629b0680068646b0032518ebed >>> Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 15:13:47 +0100 >>> >>> Roger, >>> >>> I am all for reverting it. if that does not cause any other regressions >>> or headaches (or both...) >>> >>> - Marc >>> >>> >>> >>> Am 09.12.2019 um 15:11 schrieb Strain, Roger L. <roger.strain@xxxxxxxx> >>> : >>> >>> I haven't been able to find anything relating to the issue, but I also >>> haven't had a repo that exposes the problem to test more thoroughly >>> against. If this happens to be a public repo somewhere, I'd be more >>> than happy to take a second look. >>> >>> That being said, if the community feels it would be better to revert >>> the changes that were introduced, I won't object. I've had to further >>> customize the script for our internal use, and those changes aren't >>> something that would be useful for the public at large. (A few changes >>> relate to the presence/absence of a specific file, which I certainly >>> wouldn't expect anyone else to have.) Short story is we're going to >>> have to use a custom script going forward, so keeping or reverting the >>> changes here make no difference to us. I still feel that the changes >>> which were made make the script more correct, but clearly there's some >>> undiagnosed logic error somewhere. >>> >>> Honestly, I'm surprised we didn't see this particular issue show up on >>> our own repo; it's ridiculously large and complex. At least if it had, >>> I'd be able to troubleshoot it more reliably. >>> >>> -- >>> Roger Strain >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Nadav SInai <ns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> To: roger.strain@xxxxxxxx >>> Cc: Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx, git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, gitster@xxxxxxxxx, >>> marc@xxxxxxx, pclouds@xxxxxxxxx >>> Subject: RE: Regression in git-subtree.sh, introduced in 2.20.1, after >>> 315a84f9aa0e2e629b0680068646b0032518ebed >>> Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2019 12:30:48 +0200 >>> >>> [EXTERNAL EMAIL] >>> >>> Hi, I'm curious if any of you had any luck in preventing that >>> seg-fault in git-subtree script >>> I'm encountering it myself using git 2.24.0.windows.2., seg-fault is >>> in the same while loop (currently on line 757) >>> When I tried your suggestion of adding the ($parents) ($rev) to the >>> progress print I see that the last commit have only one revision >>> printed >>> like this: >>> >>> 259/290 (523) [271] (843dd34090d36dfabd6a2e3e8459a4887427313b) >>> (a69ee056f66acf66c63f89f55d26c0cc17036623) >>> 259/290 (525) [273] (f5eea1a3cbe1e16acba53e8a9fe07b6525a8b97c) >>> (843dd34090d36dfabd6a2e3e8459a4887427313b) >>> 259/290 (527) [275] (82303752a428cf1d789ac9f156008adb2798b7b5) >>> (f5eea1a3cbe1e16acba53e8a9fe07b6525a8b97c) >>> 259/290 (528) [276] >>> (7187897883c9fb4d33d4c87a02b876f8603728ff05f0945ae2ce9f98a35135) >>> 259/290 (529) [277] >>> (a00a3665343439a426671958dd90ed0407a22cad9ac9f156008adb2798b7b5) >>> 259/290 (530) [278] >>> (90beb94ebd331c457d79d05341453f5829a50bfcd4c87a02b876f8603728ff) >>> 259/290 (531) [279] >>> (9582e0acbed1910173564e250f350b5cc4291a7f671958dd90ed0407a22cad) >>> 259/290 (532) [280] >>> (f183930d6fabd3dccdddc5ec35d754ad28caf3b879d05341453f5829a50bfc) >>> 259/290 (533) [281] >>> (c9309f3a38c41f7991d9e78ddb47f7e85b8521eb564e250f350b5cc4291a7f) >>> 259/290 (534) [282] >>> (3bcf08f63a0e2b93ecc376bd679a16c80e99e7b1ddc5ec35d754ad28caf3b8) >>> 259/290 (535) [283] >>> (134621bb55a0470cdf6519ce08d6909af43ce0e5d9e78ddb47f7e85b8521eb) >>> 259/290 (536) [284] >>> (edb3471fbba29748f9784d29b3cee1dee2df4b37c376bd679a16c80e99e7b1) >>> 259/290 (537) [285] >>> (dd947a095df07a32dfd56666a395a7c42b25ca116519ce08d6909af43ce0e5) >>> 259/290 (538) [286] >>> (a639e09d2cbe1ea1149c080c1c95b8b018340ae2784d29b3cee1dee2df4b37) >>> C:/Program Files/Git/mingw64/libexec/git-core\git-subtree: line 757: >>> 8853 Done eval "$grl" >>> 8854 Segmentation fault (core dumped) | while read rev >>> parents; do >>> process_split_commit "$rev" "$parents" 0; >>> done >>> >>> I downgraded git to 2.19.0-windows.1 and it works now. >>> >>> >>> I'm thankful for your insights >>> Nadav Sinai >>> Web Tech lead >>> Philips-Algotec >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>
