From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D8192037F for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 03:02:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731281AbfDWDC4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Apr 2019 23:02:56 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:37644 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1728527AbfDWDC4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Apr 2019 23:02:56 -0400 Received: (qmail 15590 invoked by uid 109); 23 Apr 2019 03:02:57 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 03:02:57 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 5302 invoked by uid 111); 23 Apr 2019 03:03:28 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) SMTP; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 23:03:28 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 22 Apr 2019 23:02:54 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 23:02:54 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: do people find t5504.8 flaky? Message-ID: <20190423030254.GA19604@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 11:45:17AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I have been seeing occasional failures of t5504-fetch-receive-strict > test on the cc/replace-graft-peel-tags topic, but it seems that the > fork point of that topic from the mainline already fails the same > step #8, only less frequently. > > The push is rejected as expected, but the remote side that receives > the "push" fails and the local side does not leave an expected > output we expect when the test fails. No, I haven't seen it fail, nor does running with --stress turn up anything. But looking at the test I would not be at all surprised if we have races around error hangups. I believe that index-pack will die unceremoniously as soon as something fails to pass its fsck check. The client will keep sending data, and may hit a SIGPIPE (or the network equivalent), depending on how much slack there is in the buffers, whether we hit the problem as a base object or after we receive everything and start resolving deltas, etc. I think after seeing a fatal error we probably ought to consider pumping the rest of the bytes from the client to /dev/null. That's wasteful, but it's the only clean way to get a message back, I think. It would also give us the opportunity to complain about other objects, too, if there are multiple (it might make sense to abort before resolving deltas, though; at that point we have all of the data and that phase is very CPU intensive). -Peff