A negative delta depth makes no sense, and the code is not prepared to
handle it. If passed "--depth=-1" on the command line, then this line
from break_delta_chains():
cur->depth = (total_depth--) % (depth + 1);
triggers a divide-by-zero. This is undefined behavior according to the C
standard, but on POSIX systems results in SIGFPE killing the process.
This is certainly one way to inform the use that the command was
invalid, but it's a bit friendlier to just treat it as "don't allow any
deltas", which we already do for --depth=0.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We'd expect this to cleanly produce no deltas at all (as opposed to
getting confused by an out-of-bounds value), and it does.
Note we have to adjust our max_chain test helper, which expected to find
at least one delta.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
As a follow-up to d162b25f95 (tests: remove support for
GIT_TEST_GETTEXT_POISON, 2021-01-20) remove most uses of test_i18ncmp
via a simple s/test_i18ncmp/test_cmp/g search-replacement.
I'm leaving t6300-for-each-ref.sh out due to a conflict with in-flight
changes between "master" and "seen", as well as the prerequisite
itself due to other changes between "master" and "next/seen" which add
new test_i18ncmp uses.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The GETTEXT_POISON=YesPlease compile-time testing option added in my
bb946bba76 ("i18n: add GETTEXT_POISON to simulate unfriendly
translator", 2011-02-22) has been slowly bitrotting as strings have
been marked for translation, and new tests have been added without
running it.
I brought this up on the list ("[BUG] test suite broken with
GETTEXT_POISON=YesPlease", [1]) asking whether this mode was useful at
all anymore. At least one person occasionally uses it, and Lars
Schneider offered to change one of the the Travis builds to run in
this mode, so fix up the failing ones.
My test setup runs most of the tests, with the notable exception of
skipping all the p4 tests, so it's possible that there's still some
lurking regressions I haven't fixed.
1. <CACBZZX62+acvi1dpkknadTL827mtCm_QesGSZ=6+UnyeMpg8+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Since 898b14c (pack-objects: rework check_delta_limit usage,
2007-04-16), we check the delta depth limit only when
figuring out whether we should make a new delta. We don't
consider it at all when reusing deltas, which means that
packing once with --depth=250, and then again with
--depth=50, the second pack may still contain chains larger
than 50.
This is generally considered a feature, as the results of
earlier high-depth repacks are carried forward, used for
serving fetches, etc. However, since we started using
cross-pack deltas in c9af708b1 (pack-objects: use mru list
when iterating over packs, 2016-08-11), we are no longer
bounded by the length of an existing delta chain in a single
pack.
Here's one particular pathological case: a sequence of N
packs, each with 2 objects, the base of which is stored as a
delta in a previous pack. If we chain all the deltas
together, we have a cycle of length N. We break the cycle,
but the tip delta is still at depth N-1.
This is less unlikely than it might sound. See the included
test for a reconstruction based on real-world actions. I
ran into such a case in the wild, where a client was rapidly
sending packs, and we had accumulated 10,000 before doing a
server-side repack. The pack that "git repack" tried to
generate had a very deep chain, which caused pack-objects to
run out of stack space in the recursive write_one().
This patch bounds the length of delta chains in the output
pack based on --depth, regardless of whether they are caused
by cross-pack deltas or existed in the input packs. This
fixes the problem, but does have two possible downsides:
1. High-depth aggressive repacks followed by "normal"
repacks will throw away the high-depth chains.
In the long run this is probably OK; investigation
showed that high-depth repacks aren't actually
beneficial, and we dropped the aggressive depth default
to match the normal case in 07e7dbf0d (gc: default
aggressive depth to 50, 2016-08-11).
2. If you really do want to store high-depth deltas on
disk, they may be discarded and new delta computed when
serving a fetch, unless you set pack.depth to match
your high-depth size.
The implementation uses the existing search for delta
cycles. That lets us compute the depth of any node based on
the depth of its base, because we know the base is DFS_DONE
by the time we look at it (modulo any cycles in the graph,
but we know there cannot be any because we break them as we
see them).
There is some subtlety worth mentioning, though. We record
the depth of each object as we compute it. It might seem
like we could save the per-object storage space by just
keeping track of the depth of our traversal (i.e., have
break_delta_chains() report how deep it went). But we may
visit an object through multiple delta paths, and on
subsequent paths we want to know its depth immediately,
without having to walk back down to its final base (doing so
would make our graph walk quadratic rather than linear).
Likewise, one could try to record the depth not from the
base, but from our starting point (i.e., start
recursion_depth at 0, and pass "recursion_depth + 1" to each
invocation of break_delta_chains()). And then when
recursion_depth gets too big, we know that we must cut the
delta chain. But that technique is wrong if we do not visit
the nodes in topological order. In a chain A->B->C, it
if we visit "C", then "B", then "A", we will never recurse
deeper than 1 link (because we see at each node that we have
already visited it).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
