mailing list mirror (one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Jeff King <>
To: Johannes Schindelin <>
Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget <>,, Junio C Hamano <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] config: work around bug with includeif:onbranch and early config
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 19:12:57 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 12:13:19AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> > This gets tricky, because some commands are intentionally avoiding the
> > normal lookup procedure (e.g., clone or init, and probably things like
> > upload-pack that want to enter another repo). So I think it is OK as
> > long as the early-config code is explicitly saying "and please look at
> > the refs in this specific direectory now", and it doesn't affect other
> > possible code paths that might look at refs. I _think_ that's what
> > you're suggesting above, but I just want to make sure (not that it
> > matters either way for this patch).
> I think we already have the `git clone` problem with
> `includeif.gitdir:`. AFAICT we _will_ discover a Git directory when
> cloning inside an existing Git worktree.

Yeah, I could well believe that. I think it's hard for the config code
to say what's the right think to do here. If I'm running "git clone"
from inside another repository, should I respect, say, an alias defined
in that repository's config? Probably. But should I find that alias
behind "includeif.gitdir"? I dunno. Maybe?

So I'm not 100% sure the current behavior is buggy. And mostly I'd be
happy to ignore it until somebody comes up with a compelling
(real-world) example either way.

> And as you say, there was no use case, and I would even contend that
> there still is no use case. In the cover letter, I tried to concoct
> something (using a branch-dependent pager) that sounds _really_
> far-fetched to even me.

Yeah. I'd be totally fine if we left it with your fix here and nobody
ever found time to work on this. :)

> > > -	const char *refname = resolve_ref_unsafe("HEAD", 0, NULL, &flags);
> > > +	const char *refname = !the_repository || !the_repository->gitdir ?
> > > +		NULL : resolve_ref_unsafe("HEAD", 0, NULL, &flags);
> >
> > I think the_repository is always non-NULL.
> No, it totally can be `NULL`. I know because my first version of the
> patch did not have that extra check, and `git help -a` would segfault
> outside a Git worktree when I had an `includeif.onbranch:` in my
> `~/.gitconfig`.

Hrm. But common-main calls initialize_the_repository(), which points it
at &the_repo. And I can't find any other assignments. So how does it
become NULL? And is every caller of have_git_dir() at risk of

Ah, I see. I think it is that trace2 reads the configuration very early.
I think we ought to do this:

diff --git a/common-main.c b/common-main.c
index 582a7b1886..89fd415e55 100644
--- a/common-main.c
+++ b/common-main.c
@@ -39,14 +39,14 @@ int main(int argc, const char **argv)
+	initialize_the_repository();
-	initialize_the_repository();
 	result = cmd_main(argc, argv);

or possibly even move the trace2 bits to the very end of that function.
The point of common-main is to do very basic setup. Doing tentative repo
discovery and config reading there at all is surprising to me, to say
the least. But I think we can at least make sure the library code is
initialized first.

> > The way similar sites check this is withV
> > "!startup_info->have_repository" or have_git_dir(). The early-config
> > code uses the latter, so we should probably match it here.
> Quite frankly, I'd rather not. At this point, it is not important
> whether or not we discovered a Git directory, but whether or not we have
> populated a dereference'able `the_repository`. Those are two different
> things.

What I'm concerned about it is whether there are cases where
the_repository->gitdir is NULL, but we _could_ still look up refs. I.e.,
why is the rest of the config code using have_git_dir(), and why is this
code path special?

Again, I _think_ we might be able to get rid of have_git_dir() now. Back
when it was introduced get_git_dir() did lazy setup, and these days it
looks like it's just peeking at the_repository->gitdir. But it makes
sense to me for this fix to be consistent with the surrounding code, and
then to investigate have_git_dir() separately.

> >   Side note: I suspect there are some cleanup opportunities. IIRC, I had
> >   to add have_git_dir() to cover some cases where $GIT_DIR was set but
> >   we hadn't explicitly done a setup step, but there's been a lot of
> >   refactoring and cleanup in the initialization code since then. I'm not
> >   sure if it's still necessary.
> Yeah, well, I am not necessarily certain that we always ask the right
> questions, such as asking whether we found a startup repository when we
> need, in fact, to know whether `the_repository->refs` would cause a
> segmentation fault because we would dereference a `NULL` pointer ;-)

If there are cases where startup_info->have_repository is non-zero but
we'd segfault, then I think that's a bug that is going to affect more
spots than this, and we need to investigate and fix. But I don't think
that is the case. We should only be setting it after calling
set_git_dir(), and poking at the current sites which set that leads me
to believe this is true.


  reply	other threads:[~2019-07-31 23:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-31 19:53 [PATCH 0/1] Make the includeif:onbranch feature more robust Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2019-07-31 19:53 ` [PATCH 1/1] config: work around bug with includeif:onbranch and early config Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2019-07-31 21:37   ` Junio C Hamano
2019-07-31 20:06 ` [PATCH v2 0/1] Make the includeif:onbranch feature more robust Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2019-07-31 20:06   ` [PATCH v2 1/1] config: work around bug with includeif:onbranch and early config Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2019-07-31 22:02     ` Jeff King
2019-07-31 22:13       ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-07-31 23:12         ` Jeff King [this message]
2019-08-01  0:49           ` Jeff King
2019-08-01 17:24             ` Jeff Hostetler
2019-08-06 12:26               ` [PATCH 0/3] the_repository initialization cleanup Jeff King
2019-08-06 12:26                 ` [PATCH 1/3] t1309: use short branch name in includeIf.onbranch test Jeff King
2019-08-06 12:27                 ` [PATCH 2/3] common-main: delay trace2 initialization Jeff King
2019-08-06 12:27                 ` [PATCH 3/3] config: stop checking whether the_repository is NULL Jeff King
2019-08-06 12:49                   ` Jeff King
2019-08-08 19:48                     ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-08-06 12:56               ` [PATCH v2 1/1] config: work around bug with includeif:onbranch and early config Jeff King

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).