Now that we call test_oid_init in the setup for all test scripts,
there's no point in calling it individually. Remove all of the places
where we've done so to help keep tests tidy.
Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Reviewed-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This test needs multiple object IDs that have the same first byte.
Update the pack test code to generate a suitable packed value for
SHA-256. Update the test to use this value when using SHA-256.
Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Reviewed-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Update the support routines for generating packs to support both SHA-1
and SHA-256. Compute the trailing pack checksum and its length
correctly depending on the algorithm, and look up the object names based
on the algorithm as well. Ensure we initialize the algorithm facts so
that our callers need not do so.
Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Now that the internal fsck code has all of the plumbing we
need, we can start checking incoming .gitmodules files.
Naively, it seems like we would just need to add a call to
fsck_finish() after we've processed all of the objects. And
that would be enough to cover the initial test included
here. But there are two extra bits:
1. We currently don't bother calling fsck_object() at all
for blobs, since it has traditionally been a noop. We'd
actually catch these blobs in fsck_finish() at the end,
but it's more efficient to check them when we already
have the object loaded in memory.
2. The second pass done by fsck_finish() needs to access
the objects, but we're actually indexing the pack in
this process. In theory we could give the fsck code a
special callback for accessing the in-pack data, but
it's actually quite tricky:
a. We don't have an internal efficient index mapping
oids to packfile offsets. We only generate it on
the fly as part of writing out the .idx file.
b. We'd still have to reconstruct deltas, which means
we'd basically have to replicate all of the
reading logic in packfile.c.
Instead, let's avoid running fsck_finish() until after
we've written out the .idx file, and then just add it
to our internal packed_git list.
This does mean that the objects are "in the repository"
before we finish our fsck checks. But unpack-objects
already exhibits this same behavior, and it's an
acceptable tradeoff here for the same reason: the
quarantine mechanism means that pushes will be
fully protected.
In addition to a basic push test in t7415, we add a sneaky
pack that reverses the usual object order in the pack,
requiring that index-pack access the tree and blob during
the "finish" step.
This already works for unpack-objects (since it will have
written out loose objects), but we'll check it with this
sneaky pack for good measure.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
A #! line in these files is misleading, since these scriptlets are
meant to be sourced with '.' (using whatever shell sources them)
instead of run directly using the interpreter named on the #! line.
Removing the #! line shouldn't hurt syntax highlighting since
these files have filenames ending with '.sh'. For documentation,
add a brief description of how the files are meant to be used in
place of the shebang line.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The printf utility provided by coreutils when interpreting '\%o' format
does not recognize %o as formatting directive. For example
printf '\%o 0 returns \%o and warning: ignoring excess arguments,
starting with ‘0’, which results in failed tests in
t5309-pack-delta-cycles.sh. In most shells the test ends with success as
the printf is a builtin utility.
Fix it by using '\\%o' which is interpreted consistently in all versions
of printf.
Signed-off-by: Kacper Kornet <draenog@pld-linux.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
If we receive a broken or malicious pack from a remote, we
will feed it to index-pack. As index-pack processes the
objects as a stream, reconstructing and hashing each object
to get its name, it is not very susceptible to doing the
wrong with bad data (it simply notices that the data is
bogus and aborts).
However, one question raised on the list is whether it could
be susceptible to problems during the delta-resolution
phase. In particular, can a cycle in the packfile deltas
cause us to go into an infinite loop or cause any other
problem?
The answer is no.
We cannot have a cycle of delta-base offsets, because they
go only in one direction (the OFS_DELTA object mentions its
base by an offset towards the beginning of the file, and we
explicitly reject negative offsets).
We can have a cycle of REF_DELTA objects, which refer to
base objects by sha1 name. However, index-pack does not know
these sha1 names ahead of time; it has to reconstruct the
objects to get their names, and it cannot do so if there is
a delta cycle (in other words, it does not even realize
there is a cycle, but only that there are items that cannot
be resolved).
Even though we can reason out that index-pack should handle
this fine, let's add a few tests to make sure it behaves
correctly.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The sha1_entry_pos function tries to be smart about
selecting the middle of a range for its binary search by
looking at the value differences between the "lo" and "hi"
constraints. However, it is unable to cope with entries with
duplicate keys in the sorted list.
We may hit a point in the search where both our "lo" and
"hi" point to the same key. In this case, the range of
values between our endpoints is 0, and trying to scale the
difference between our key and the endpoints over that range
is undefined (i.e., divide by zero). The current code
catches this with an "assert(lov < hiv)".
Moreover, after seeing that the first 20 byte of the key are
the same, we will try to establish a value from the 21st
byte. Which is nonsensical.
Instead, we can detect the case that we are in a run of
duplicates, and simply do a final comparison against any one
of them (since they are all the same, it does not matter
which). If the keys match, we have found our entry (or one
of them, anyway). If not, then we know that we do not need
to look further, as we must be in a run of the duplicate
key.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
