On 6/3/2020 1:16 AM, Taylor Blau wrote: > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 10:52:48PM -0600, Taylor Blau wrote: >> Hi Jonathan, >> >> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 08:42:13PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Taylor Blau wrote: >>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> builtin/receive-pack.c | 4 ++-- >>>> commit.h | 2 ++ >>>> fetch-pack.c | 10 +++++----- >>>> shallow.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++--------- >>>> t/t5537-fetch-shallow.sh | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 5 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) >>> >>> I haven't investigated the cause yet, but I've run into an interesting >>> bug that bisects to this commit. Jay Conrod (cc-ed) reports: >>> >>> | I believe this is also the cause of Go toolchain test failures we've >>> | been seeing. Go uses git to fetch dependencies. >>> | >>> | The problem we're seeing can be reproduced with the script below. It >>> | should print "success". Instead, the git merge-base command fails >>> | because the commit 7303f77963648d5f1ec5e55eccfad8e14035866c >>> | (origin/master) has no history. >>> >>> -- 8< -- >>> #!/bin/bash >>> >>> set -euxo pipefail >>> if [ -d legacytest ]; then >>> echo "legacytest directory already exists" >&2 >>> exit 1 >>> fi >>> mkdir legacytest >>> cd legacytest >>> git init --bare >>> git config protocol.version 2 >>> git config fetch.writeCommitGraph true >>> git remote add origin -- https://github.com/rsc/legacytest >>> git fetch -f --depth=1 origin refs/heads/master:refs/heads/master >>> git fetch -f origin 'refs/heads/*:refs/heads/*' 'refs/tags/*:refs/tags/*' >>> git fetch --unshallow -f origin >>> git merge-base --is-ancestor -- v2.0.0 7303f77963648d5f1ec5e55eccfad8e14035866c >>> echo success >>> -- >8 -- >> >> Thanks to you and Jay for the report and reproduction script. Indeed, I >> can reproduce this on the tip of master (which is equivalent to v2.27.0 >> at the time of writing). >> >>> The fetch.writeCommitGraph part is interesting. When does a commit >>> graph file get written in this sequence of operations? In an >>> unshallow operation, does the usual guard against writing a commit >>> graph in a shallow repo get missed? >> >> The last 'git fetch' is the one that writes the commit-graph. You can >> verify this by sticking a 'ls objects/info' after each 'git' invocation >> in your script. >> >> Here's where things get weird, though. Prior to this patch, Git would >> pick up that the repository is shallow before unshallowing, but never >> invalidate this fact after unshallowing. That means that once we got to >> 'write_commit_graph', we'd exit immediately since it appears as if the >> repository is shallow. >> >> In this patch, we don't do that anymore, since we rightly unset the fact >> that we are (were) shallow. >> >> In a debugger, I ran your script and a 'git commit-graph write --split >> --reachable' side-by-side, and found an interesting discrepancy: some >> commits (loaded from 'copy_oids_to_commits') *don't* have their parents >> set when invoked from 'git fetch', but *do* when invoked as 'git >> commit-graph write ...'. >> >> I'm not an expert in the object cache, but my hunch is that when we >> fetch these objects they're marked as parsed without having loaded their >> parents. When we load them again via 'lookup_object', we get objects >> that look parsed, but don't have parents where they otherwise should. > > 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)). > > That makes me somewhat nervous. We're going to keep any objects opened > prior to unshallowing in the cache, along with their hidden parents. I > suspect that this is why Git has kept the shallow bit as sticky for so > long. > > I'm not quite sure what to do here. I think that any of the following > would work: > > * Keep the shallow bit sticky, at least for fetch.writeCommitGraph > (i.e., pretend as if fetch.writecommitgraph=0 in the case of > '--unshallow'). I'm in favor of this option, if possible. Anything that alters the commit history in-memory at any point in the Git process is unsafe to combine with a commit-graph read _or_ write. I'm sorry that the guards in commit_graph_compatible() are not enough here. > * Dump the object cache upon un-shallowing, forcing us to re-discover > the parents when they are no longer hidden behind a graft. > > The latter seems like the most complete feasible fix. The former should > work fine to address this case, but I wonder if there are other > call-sites that are affected by this behavior. My hunch is that this is > a unique case, since it requires going from shallow to unshallow in the > same process. The latter would solve issues that could arise outside of the commit-graph space. But it also presents an opportunity for another gap if someone edits the shallow logic without putting in the proper guards. To be extra safe, I'd be in favor of adding an "if (grafts_ever_existed)" condition in commit_graph_compatible() based on a global that is assigned a non-zero value whenever grafts are loaded at any point in the process, mostly because it would be easy to guarantee that it is safe. It could even be localized to the repository struct. > I have yet to create a smaller test case, but the following should be > sufficient to dump the cache of parsed objects upon shallowing or > un-shallowing: > > diff --git a/shallow.c b/shallow.c > index b826de9b67..06db857f53 100644 > --- 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); > + > + parsed_object_pool_clear(r->parsed_objects); > + r->parsed_objects = parsed_object_pool_new(); > } > > int commit_shallow_file(struct repository *r, struct shallow_lock *lk) > > Is this something we want to go forward with? Are there some > far-reaching implications that I'm missing? I'd like to see the extra-careful check, in addition to this one. This is such a rarely-used and narrowly-tested case that we need to be really really careful to avoid regressions. Thanks, -Stolee
