On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 12:35:29PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> It does not sound like a BUG to me, either, but the new condition > >> does look correct to me, too. We can turn it into die() later if > >> somebody truly cares ;-) > >> > >> Thanks, both. Will queue. > > > > Thanks much for the quick turnaround. If I hear more noise I'll give it > > a try with die() or error code instead, but for now I'll move on to the > > next bug on my list. :) > > By the way, it is somewhat sad that we proceeded that far in the > first place---such a corrupt on-disk index would have caused an > early die() if we did not get rid of the trailing-hash integrity > check. Perhaps. The integrity check only protects against an index that was modified after the fact, not one that was generated by a buggy Git. I'm not sure we know how the index that led to this patch got into this state (though it sounds like Emily has a copy and could check the hash on it), but other cache-tree segfault I found recently was with an index with an intact integrity hash. So I think regardless of the trailing-hash check, we'd always want to be defensive when reading on-disk data. -Peff
