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=-4.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 B71C51F453 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2019 14:14:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726844AbfBIOOj (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Feb 2019 09:14:39 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-f67.google.com ([209.85.128.67]:54058 "EHLO mail-wm1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726741AbfBIOOj (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Feb 2019 09:14:39 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-f67.google.com with SMTP id d15so8588165wmb.3 for ; Sat, 09 Feb 2019 06:14:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=diamand.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sdJ5xpiaHpR4DJSKjxi4TWnn7D63Ui4w842mVT18ZJ0=; b=dvlepJIRrWLH2B1dpyT4uC+UGt0tiX1fQih5U+g7NMkBdygL4ngLxiZSY+vsLGjU7/ WZrEaFU+3rX8i5+eVZ4lZMblQHY6mXAXbZzImhjQQC4zpKTiY8FDhKg8gCDoTD+dffw1 G+8YxeF+l/Jz0+MOWqynfK+/UozA5VkG9Kl9s= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sdJ5xpiaHpR4DJSKjxi4TWnn7D63Ui4w842mVT18ZJ0=; b=YeYSb2+i17Z6zPuGiSbZrFTtqwRswlL54s+IyUkP34l/qk8YTUhwCUT/7e+WEtijwr xbd4d630xGGgE450ECQW7uXkQa4yae00ScQizbrJvcYaNbZH8izcPXG4PJKfZGuTcWcc 9ADDo0jSR4jCgueQLWU1I57I986869FbPhQh+HD7Fq51yGtTJH8h0AfdkOgla2na6sgQ F85wAciBqpaEcUHfzFX3tkI2ZNS9Uo4Vs9Kfr4RYbUETI4O85nOTbAPD1Mr9FS6uFlFv OZnBeaF6tRYGuxE68QRAMdtxiHSrLg4G9XVK++fmHIGmafoVd1IWorq6NMCcynMkNrHN 9frg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubiOgu2rPCwNDTledSCVky48+se+OOXLUWhZGHuyQuyd9UbV3VB rjvcTfoQTqaNj9Gkm2ItYGXTykVu76EInYEJfooh8g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IY7NcmxCq8wcJznydqqdQn63jNw2RDeTpOYocabrsCpugZooYymzekAgUU38w6WPeZQFCw2PKXyetGJIO325HM= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:2314:: with SMTP id j20mr2968215wmj.142.1549721676374; Sat, 09 Feb 2019 06:14:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190209112328.26317-1-pclouds@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20190209112328.26317-1-pclouds@gmail.com> From: Luke Diamand Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2019 14:14:25 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] unpack-trees.c: fix writing "link" index ext with null base oid To: =?UTF-8?B?Tmd1eeG7hW4gVGjDoWkgTmfhu41jIER1eQ==?= Cc: Christian Couder , Git Users , Elijah Newren , Junio C Hamano Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 11:23, Nguy=E1=BB=85n Th=C3=A1i Ng=E1=BB=8Dc Duy wrote: > > Since commit 7db118303a (unpack_trees: fix breakage when o->src_index != =3D > o->dst_index - 2018-04-23) and changes in merge code to use separate > index_state for source and destination, when doing a merge with split > index activated, we may run into this line in unpack_trees(): > > o->result.split_index =3D init_split_index(&o->result); > > This is by itself not wrong. But this split index information is not > fully populated (and it's only so when move_cache_to_base_index() is > called, aka force splitting the index, or loading index_state from a > file). Both "base_oid" and "base" in this case remain null. > > So when writing the main index down, we link to this index with null > oid (default value after init_split_index()), which also means "no split > index" internally. This triggers an incorrect base index refresh: > > warning: could not freshen shared index '.../sharedindex.0{40}' > > This patch makes sure we will not refresh null base_oid (because the > file is never there). It also makes sure not to write "link" extension > with null base_oid in the first place (no point having it at > all). Read code already has protection against null base_oid. > > There is also another side fix in remove_split_index() that causes a > crash when doing "git update-index --no-split-index" when base_oid in > the index file is null. In this case we will not load > istate->split_index->base but we dereference it anyway and are rewarded > with a segfault. This should not happen anymore, but it's still wrong to > dereference a potential NULL pointer, especially when we do check for > NULL pointer in the next code. > > Reported-by: Luke Diamand > Signed-off-by: Nguy=E1=BB=85n Th=C3=A1i Ng=E1=BB=8Dc Duy > --- > I considered adding a test, but since the problem is a warning, not > sure how to catch that. And a test would not be able to verify all > changes in this patch anyway. > > read-cache.c | 5 +++-- > split-index.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++---------------- > 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c > index 0e0c93edc9..d6fb09984f 100644 > --- a/read-cache.c > +++ b/read-cache.c > @@ -2894,7 +2894,8 @@ static int do_write_index(struct index_state *istat= e, struct tempfile *tempfile, > return -1; > } > > - if (!strip_extensions && istate->split_index) { > + if (!strip_extensions && istate->split_index && > + !is_null_oid(&istate->split_index->base_oid)) { > struct strbuf sb =3D STRBUF_INIT; > > err =3D write_link_extension(&sb, istate) < 0 || > @@ -3189,7 +3190,7 @@ int write_locked_index(struct index_state *istate, = struct lock_file *lock, > ret =3D write_split_index(istate, lock, flags); > > /* Freshen the shared index only if the split-index was written *= / > - if (!ret && !new_shared_index) { > + if (!ret && !new_shared_index && !is_null_oid(&si->base_oid)) { > const char *shared_index =3D git_path("sharedindex.%s", > oid_to_hex(&si->base_= oid)); > freshen_shared_index(shared_index, 1); > diff --git a/split-index.c b/split-index.c > index 5820412dc5..a9d13611a4 100644 > --- a/split-index.c > +++ b/split-index.c > @@ -440,24 +440,26 @@ void add_split_index(struct index_state *istate) > void remove_split_index(struct index_state *istate) > { > if (istate->split_index) { > - /* > - * When removing the split index, we need to move > - * ownership of the mem_pool associated with the > - * base index to the main index. There may be cache entri= es > - * allocated from the base's memory pool that are shared = with > - * the_index.cache[]. > - */ > - mem_pool_combine(istate->ce_mem_pool, istate->split_index= ->base->ce_mem_pool); > + if (istate->split_index->base) { > + /* > + * When removing the split index, we need to move > + * ownership of the mem_pool associated with the > + * base index to the main index. There may be cac= he entries > + * allocated from the base's memory pool that are= shared with > + * the_index.cache[]. > + */ > + mem_pool_combine(istate->ce_mem_pool, > + istate->split_index->base->ce_me= m_pool); > > - /* > - * The split index no longer owns the mem_pool backing > - * its cache array. As we are discarding this index, > - * mark the index as having no cache entries, so it > - * will not attempt to clean up the cache entries or > - * validate them. > - */ > - if (istate->split_index->base) > + /* > + * The split index no longer owns the mem_pool ba= cking > + * its cache array. As we are discarding this ind= ex, > + * mark the index as having no cache entries, so = it > + * will not attempt to clean up the cache entries= or > + * validate them. > + */ > istate->split_index->base->cache_nr =3D 0; > + } > > /* > * We can discard the split index because its > -- > 2.20.1.682.gd5861c6d90 Ack, I no longer see those messages. >