Re: [PATCH v3 10/20] commit-graph: verify objects exist

[Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>]

On 5/30/2018 3:22 PM, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> writes:
>
>> In the 'verify' subcommand, load commits directly from the object
>> database to ensure they exist. Parse by skipping the commit-graph.
> All right, before we check that the commit data matches, we need to
> check that all the commits in cache (in the serialized commit graph) are
> present in real data (in the object database of the repository).
>
> What's nice of this series is that the operation that actually removes
> unreachable commits from the object database, that is `git gc`, would
> also update commit-gaph file.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
>> ---
>>   commit-graph.c          | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>   t/t5318-commit-graph.sh |  7 +++++++
>>   2 files changed, 27 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/commit-graph.c b/commit-graph.c
>> index cbd1aae514..0420ebcd87 100644
>> --- a/commit-graph.c
>> +++ b/commit-graph.c
>> @@ -238,6 +238,10 @@ static struct commit_list **insert_parent_or_die(struct commit_graph *g,
>>   {
>>   	struct commit *c;
>>   	struct object_id oid;
>> +
>> +	if (pos >= g->num_commits)
>> +		die("invalid parent position %"PRIu64, pos);
>> +
> This change is not described in the commit message.
This change should go in "commit-graph: verify parent list" which adds a 
test that fails without it. Thanks.

>>   	hashcpy(oid.hash, g->chunk_oid_lookup + g->hash_len * pos);
>>   	c = lookup_commit(&oid);
>>   	if (!c)
>> @@ -905,5 +909,21 @@ int verify_commit_graph(struct commit_graph *g)
>>   		cur_fanout_pos++;
>>   	}
>>   
>> +	if (verify_commit_graph_error)
>> +		return verify_commit_graph_error;
> All right, so we by default short-circuit so that errors found earlier
> wouldn't cause crash when checking other things.
>
> Is it needed, though, in this case?  Though I guess it is better to be
> conservative; lso by terminating after a batch of one type of errors we
> don't get many different error messages from the same error (i.e. error
> propagation).
>
>> +
>> +	for (i = 0; i < g->num_commits; i++) {
>> +		struct commit *odb_commit;
>> +
>> +		hashcpy(cur_oid.hash, g->chunk_oid_lookup + g->hash_len * i);
>> +
>> +		odb_commit = (struct commit *)create_object(cur_oid.hash, alloc_commit_node());
> Do we really need to keep all those commits from the object database in
> memory (in the object::obj_hash hash table)?  Perhaps using something
> like Flywheel / Recycler pattern would be a better solution (if
> possible)?
>
> Though perhaps this doesn't matter much with respect to memory use.
>
>> +		if (parse_commit_internal(odb_commit, 0, 0)) {
> Just a reminder to myself: the signature is
>
>    int parse_commit_internal(struct commit *item, int quiet_on_missing, int use_commit_graph)
>
>
> Hmmm... I wonder if with two boolean paramaters wouldn't it be better to
> use flags parameter, i.e.
>
>    int parse_commit_internal(struct commit *item, int flags)
>
>    ...
>
>    parse_commit_internal(commit, QUIET_ON_MISSING | USE_COMMIT_GRAPH)
>
> But I guess that it is not worth it (especially for internal-ish
> function).
>
>> +			graph_report("failed to parse %s from object database",
>> +				     oid_to_hex(&cur_oid));
> Wouldn't parse_commit_internal() show it's own error message, in
> addition to the one above?
>
>> +			continue;
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +
>>   	return verify_commit_graph_error;
>>   }
>> diff --git a/t/t5318-commit-graph.sh b/t/t5318-commit-graph.sh
>> index c050ef980b..996a016239 100755
>> --- a/t/t5318-commit-graph.sh
>> +++ b/t/t5318-commit-graph.sh
>> @@ -247,6 +247,7 @@ test_expect_success 'git commit-graph verify' '
>>   	git commit-graph verify >output
>>   '
>>   
>> +NUM_COMMITS=9
>>   HASH_LEN=20
>>   GRAPH_BYTE_VERSION=4
>>   GRAPH_BYTE_HASH=5
>> @@ -265,6 +266,7 @@ GRAPH_BYTE_FANOUT1=`expr $GRAPH_FANOUT_OFFSET + 4 \* 4`
>>   GRAPH_BYTE_FANOUT2=`expr $GRAPH_FANOUT_OFFSET + 4 \* 255`
>>   GRAPH_OID_LOOKUP_OFFSET=`expr $GRAPH_FANOUT_OFFSET + 4 \* 256`
>>   GRAPH_BYTE_OID_LOOKUP_ORDER=`expr $GRAPH_OID_LOOKUP_OFFSET + $HASH_LEN \* 8`
>> +GRAPH_BYTE_OID_LOOKUP_MISSING=`expr $GRAPH_OID_LOOKUP_OFFSET + $HASH_LEN \* 4 + 10`
> All right, so we modify 10-the byte of OID of 5-th commit out of 9,
> am I correct here?
>
>>   
>>   # usage: corrupt_graph_and_verify <position> <data> <string>
>>   # Manipulates the commit-graph file at the position
>> @@ -334,4 +336,9 @@ test_expect_success 'detect incorrect OID order' '
>>   		"incorrect OID order"
>>   '
>>   
>> +test_expect_success 'detect OID not in object database' '
>> +	corrupt_graph_and_verify $GRAPH_BYTE_OID_LOOKUP_MISSING "\01" \
>> +		"from object database"
>> +'
> I guess that if we ensure that OIDs are constant, you have chosen the
> change to actually corrupt the OID in OID Lookup chunk to point to OID
> that is not in the object database (while still not violating the
> constraint that OID in OID Lookup chunk needs to be sorted).
>
>> +
>>   test_done
> All right (well, except for `expr ... ` --> $(( ... )) change).
>