When writing a bundle to a file, the bundle code actually creates
"your.bundle.lock" using our lockfile interface. We feed that output
descriptor to a child git-pack-objects via run-command, which has the
quirk that it closes the output descriptor in the parent.
To avoid confusing the lockfile code (which still thinks the descriptor
is valid), we dup() it, and operate on the duplicate.
However, this has a confusing side effect: after the dup() but before we
call pack-objects, we have _two_ descriptors open to the lockfile. If we
call die() during that time, the lockfile code will try to clean up the
partially-written file. It knows to close() the file before unlinking,
since on some platforms (i.e., Windows) the open file would block the
deletion. But it doesn't know about the duplicate descriptor. On
Windows, triggering an error at the right part of the code will result
in the cleanup failing and the lockfile being left in the filesystem.
We can solve this by moving the dup() much closer to start_command(),
shrinking the window in which we have the second descriptor open. It's
easy to place this in such a way that no die() is possible. We could
still die due to a signal in the exact wrong moment, but we already
tolerate races there (e.g., a signal could come before we manage to put
the file on the cleanup list in the first place).
As a bonus, this shields create_bundle() itself from the duplicate-fd
trick, and we can simplify its error handling (note that the lock
rollback now happens unconditionally, but that's OK; it's a noop if we
didn't open the lock in the first place).
The included test uses an empty bundle to cause a failure at the right
spot in the code, because that's easy to trigger (the other likely
errors are write() problems like ENOSPC). Note that it would already
pass on non-Windows systems (because they are happy to unlink an
already-open file).
Based-on-a-patch-by: Gaël Lhez <gael.lhez@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Tested-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When trying to find a good spot for testing clone with submodules, I
got confused where to add a new test file. There are both tests in t560*
as well as t57* both testing the clone command. t/README claims the
second digit is to indicate the command, which is inconsistent to the
current naming structure.
Rename all t57* tests to be in t56* to follow the pattern of the digits
as laid out in t/README.
It would have been less work to rename t56* => t57* because there are less
files, but the tests in t56* look more basic and I assumed the higher the
last digits the more complicated niche details are tested, so with the patch
now it looks more in order to me.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
