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=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE 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 A7F821F619 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 22:42:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726833AbgCFWmr (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Mar 2020 17:42:47 -0500 Received: from smtprelay03.ispgateway.de ([80.67.31.30]:57667 "EHLO smtprelay03.ispgateway.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726240AbgCFWmq (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Mar 2020 17:42:46 -0500 Received: from [84.175.189.84] (helo=[192.168.2.6]) by smtprelay03.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from ) id 1jALg2-0005bO-S5; Fri, 06 Mar 2020 23:42:42 +0100 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] set_git_dir: fix crash when used with real_path() To: Junio C Hamano , Alexandr Miloslavskiy via GitGitGadget Cc: git@vger.kernel.org References: From: Alexandr Miloslavskiy Message-ID: <8cfa5434-4f67-fa1a-7de0-2c4d12653488@syntevo.com> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 23:42:44 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Df-Sender: YWxleGFuZHIubWlsb3NsYXZza2l5QHN5bnRldm8uY29t Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 06.03.2020 22:54, Junio C Hamano wrote: > With this detailed explanation, I expected to see a test or two that > demonstrates a breakage, but reading a stale value may not > reproducibly give the same wrong result or crash the program, > perhaps? Let's put it this way: one of the tests hits the bug every single time, yet still the bug has gone unnoticed for years. So yes, it's not super reliable. I think I could make a test that crashes often enough, but the effort will probably not be justified. The problem here is rather apparent when a finger is pointed to it.