Re: [PATCH] rebase --autosquash: fix a potential segfault

[Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>]

On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 05:33:26PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 08:40:04PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
>
> > When rearranging the todo list so that the fixups/squashes are reordered
> > just after the commits they intend to fix up, we use two arrays to
> > maintain that list: `next` and `tail`.
> >
> > The idea is that `next[i]`, if set to a non-negative value, contains the
> > index of the item that should be rearranged just after the `i`th item.
> >
> > To avoid having to walk the entire `next` chain when appending another
> > fixup/squash, we also store the end of the `next` chain in `last[i]`.
>
> s/last/tail/, I think? (and below)
>
> > The good news is that it is easy to fix this: we can detect the
> > situation by looking at `last[i2]` (which will be `-1` if `i2` is
> > actually in the middle of a fixup chain), and in that case we simply
> > need to squeeze the current item into the middle of the `next` chain,
> > without touching `last` (i.e. leaving the end index of the fixup chain
> > alone).
>
> OK, good. I definitely had figured out how to detect the case, but
> wasn't quite sure how to manipulate next.
>
> But your fix here makes sense:
>
> >  			if (next[i2] < 0)
> >  				next[i2] = i;
> > -			else
> > +			else if (tail[i2] >= 0)
> >  				next[tail[i2]] = i;
> > +			else {
> > +				/*
> > +				 * i2 refers to a fixup commit in the middle of
> > +				 * a fixup chain
> > +				 */
> > +				next[i] = next[i2];
> > +				next[i2] = i;
> > +				continue;
> > +			}
>
> I do have one question, though. What happens if we add a second
> fixup-of-a-fixup?

Thanks for asking this question, I was a little curious about it, too.

> We'd see its "next" slot filled, but now pointing to the first
> fixup-of-a-fixup. And we'd add ourselves at the front of that list. So I
> think:
>
>   1234 foo
>   5678 !fixup foo
>   abcd !fixup 5678
>   dbaf !fixup 5678
>
> would end up reordering abcd and dbaf (putting dbaf first), wouldn't it?
>
> But when I tested it doesn't seem to:
>
>   git init
>   git commit -m base --allow-empty
>   git commit --squash HEAD -m 'this is the first squash' --allow-empty
>   s=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
>   git commit -m "squash! $s" -m 'this is the second squash' --allow-empty
>   git commit -m "squash! $s" -m 'this is the third squash' --allow-empty
>   git rebase -ki --autosquash --root
>
> So I think there's something I don't quite understand about how the
> chain of "next" works. If you can enlighten me, I'd be grateful.

Ditto.

> But your patch does seem to work as advertised. It might be worth adding
> the double-squash-of-squash to the test.

Yes, I think that this is a good, worthwhile addition to the patch.
Sorry Johannes for suggesting that you do more work on an already-great
patch. No good deed goes unpunished, I guess ;).

> -Peff

Thanks,
Taylor