has_sha1_file: re-check pack directory before giving up
When we read a sha1 file, we first look for a packed version, then a loose version, and then re-check the pack directory again before concluding that we cannot find it. This lets us handle a process that is writing to the repository simultaneously (e.g., receive-pack writing a new pack followed by a ref update, or git-repack packing existing loose objects into a new pack). However, we do not do the same trick with has_sha1_file; we only check the packed objects once, followed by loose objects. This means that we might incorrectly report that we do not have an object, even though we could find it if we simply re-checked the pack directory. By itself, this is usually not a big deal. The other process is running simultaneously, so we may run has_sha1_file before it writes, anyway. It is a race whether we see the object or not. However, we may also see other things the writing process has done (like updating refs); and in that case, we must be able to also see the new objects. For example, imagine we are doing a for_each_ref iteration, and somebody simultaneously pushes. Receive-pack may write the pack and update a ref after we have examined the objects/pack directory, but before the iteration gets to the updated ref. When we do finally see the updated ref, for_each_ref will call has_sha1_file to check whether the ref is broken. If has_sha1_file returns the wrong answer, we erroneously will think that the ref is broken. For a normal iteration without DO_FOR_EACH_INCLUDE_BROKEN, this means that the caller does not see the ref at all (neither the old nor the new value). So not only will we fail to see the new value of the ref (which is acceptable, since we are running simultaneously with the writer, and we might well read the ref before the writer commits its write), but we will not see the old value either. For programs that act on reachability like pack-objects or prune, this can cause data loss, as we may see the objects referenced by the original ref value as dangling (and either omit them from the pack, or delete them via prune). There's no test included here, because the success case is two processes running simultaneously forever. But you can replicate the issue with: # base.sh # run this in one terminal; it creates and pushes # repeatedly to a repository git init parent && (cd parent && # create a base commit that will trigger us looking at # the objects/pack directory before we hit the updated ref echo content >file && git add file && git commit -m base && # set the unpack limit abnormally low, which # lets us simulate full-size pushes using tiny ones git config receive.unpackLimit 1 ) && git clone parent child && cd child && n=0 && while true; do echo $n >file && git add file && git commit -m $n && git push origin HEAD:refs/remotes/child/master && n=$(($n + 1)) done # fsck.sh # now run this simultaneously in another terminal; it # repeatedly fscks, looking for us to consider the # newly-pushed ref broken. We cannot use for-each-ref # here, as it uses DO_FOR_EACH_INCLUDE_BROKEN, which # skips the has_sha1_file check (and if it wants # more information on the object, it will actually read # the object, which does the proper two-step lookup) cd parent && while true; do broken=`git fsck 2>&1 | grep remotes/child` if test -n "$broken"; then echo $broken exit 1 fi done Without this patch, the fsck loop fails within a few seconds (and almost instantly if the test repository actually has a large number of refs). With it, the two can run indefinitely. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
e230c568c4
commit
45e8a74873
@ -2925,7 +2925,10 @@ int has_sha1_file(const unsigned char *sha1)
|
||||
|
||||
if (find_pack_entry(sha1, &e))
|
||||
return 1;
|
||||
return has_loose_object(sha1);
|
||||
if (has_loose_object(sha1))
|
||||
return 1;
|
||||
reprepare_packed_git();
|
||||
return find_pack_entry(sha1, &e);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
static void check_tree(const void *buf, size_t size)
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user