From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "René Scharfe" <l.s.r@web.de>,
"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] hash-object: use fsck for object checks
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 16:34:02 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y8hlyr0o6gs9omI5@nand.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y8haHL9xIWntSm0/@coredump.intra.peff.net>
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 03:44:12PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> This is obviously going to be a user-visible behavior change, and the
> test changes earlier in this series show the scope of the impact. But
> I'd argue that this is OK:
>
> - the documentation for hash-object is already vague about which
> checks we might do, saying that --literally will allow "any
> garbage[...] which might not otherwise pass standard object parsing
> or git-fsck checks". So we are already covered under the documented
> behavior.
>
> - users don't generally run hash-object anyway. There are a lot of
> spots in the tests that needed to be updated because creating
> garbage objects is something that Git's tests disproportionately do.
>
> - it's hard to imagine anyone thinking the new behavior is worse. Any
> object we reject would be a potential problem down the road for the
> user. And if they really want to create garbage, --literally is
> already the escape hatch they need.
This is the discussion I was pointing out earlier in the series as
evidence for making this behavior the new default without "--literally".
That being said, let me play devil's advocate for a second. Do the new
fsck checks slow anything in hash-object down significantly? If so, then
it's plausible to imagine a hash-object caller who (a) doesn't use
`--literally`, but (b) does care about throughput if they're writing a
large number of objects at once.
I don't know if such a situation exists, or if these new fsck checks
even slow hash-object down enough to care. But I didn't catch a
discussion of this case in your series, so I figured I'd bring it up
here just in case.
> - the resulting messages are much better. For example:
>
> [before]
> $ echo 'tree 123' | git hash-object -t commit --stdin
> error: bogus commit object 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
> fatal: corrupt commit
>
> [after]
> $ echo 'tree 123' | git.compile hash-object -t commit --stdin
> error: object fails fsck: badTreeSha1: invalid 'tree' line format - bad sha1
> fatal: refusing to create malformed object
Much nicer, well done.
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> ---
> object-file.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++------------------------
> t/t1007-hash-object.sh | 11 +++++++++
> 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/object-file.c b/object-file.c
> index 80a0cd3b35..5c96384803 100644
> --- a/object-file.c
> +++ b/object-file.c
> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
> #include "object-store.h"
> #include "promisor-remote.h"
> #include "submodule.h"
> +#include "fsck.h"
>
> /* The maximum size for an object header. */
> #define MAX_HEADER_LEN 32
> @@ -2298,32 +2299,21 @@ int repo_has_object_file(struct repository *r,
> return repo_has_object_file_with_flags(r, oid, 0);
> }
>
> -static void check_tree(const void *buf, size_t size)
> -{
> - struct tree_desc desc;
> - struct name_entry entry;
> -
> - init_tree_desc(&desc, buf, size);
> - while (tree_entry(&desc, &entry))
> - /* do nothing
> - * tree_entry() will die() on malformed entries */
> - ;
> -}
> -
> -static void check_commit(const void *buf, size_t size)
> -{
> - struct commit c;
> - memset(&c, 0, sizeof(c));
> - if (parse_commit_buffer(the_repository, &c, buf, size, 0))
> - die(_("corrupt commit"));
> -}
> -
> -static void check_tag(const void *buf, size_t size)
> -{
> - struct tag t;
> - memset(&t, 0, sizeof(t));
> - if (parse_tag_buffer(the_repository, &t, buf, size))
> - die(_("corrupt tag"));
OK, here we're getting rid of all of the lightweight checks that
hash-object used to implement on its own.
> +/*
> + * We can't use the normal fsck_error_function() for index_mem(),
> + * because we don't yet have a valid oid for it to report. Instead,
> + * report the minimal fsck error here, and rely on the caller to
> + * give more context.
> + */
> +static int hash_format_check_report(struct fsck_options *opts,
> + const struct object_id *oid,
> + enum object_type object_type,
> + enum fsck_msg_type msg_type,
> + enum fsck_msg_id msg_id,
> + const char *message)
> +{
> + error(_("object fails fsck: %s"), message);
> + return 1;
> }
>
> static int index_mem(struct index_state *istate,
> @@ -2350,12 +2340,13 @@ static int index_mem(struct index_state *istate,
> }
> }
> if (flags & HASH_FORMAT_CHECK) {
> - if (type == OBJ_TREE)
> - check_tree(buf, size);
> - if (type == OBJ_COMMIT)
> - check_commit(buf, size);
> - if (type == OBJ_TAG)
> - check_tag(buf, size);
> + struct fsck_options opts = FSCK_OPTIONS_DEFAULT;
> +
> + opts.strict = 1;
> + opts.error_func = hash_format_check_report;
> + if (fsck_buffer(null_oid(), type, buf, size, &opts))
> + die(_("refusing to create malformed object"));
> + fsck_finish(&opts);
> }
And here's the main part of the change, which is delightfully simple and
appears correct to me.
> diff --git a/t/t1007-hash-object.sh b/t/t1007-hash-object.sh
> index 2d2148d8fa..ac3d173767 100755
> --- a/t/t1007-hash-object.sh
> +++ b/t/t1007-hash-object.sh
> @@ -222,6 +222,17 @@ test_expect_success 'empty filename in tree' '
> grep "empty filename in tree entry" err
> '
>
> +test_expect_success 'duplicate filename in tree' '
> + hex_oid=$(echo foo | git hash-object --stdin -w) &&
> + bin_oid=$(echo $hex_oid | hex2oct) &&
> + {
> + printf "100644 file\0$bin_oid" &&
> + printf "100644 file\0$bin_oid"
> + } >tree-with-duplicate-filename &&
> + test_must_fail git hash-object -t tree tree-with-duplicate-filename 2>err &&
> + grep "duplicateEntries" err
> +'
> +
For what it's worth, I think that this is sufficient coverage for the
new fsck checks.
Thanks,
Taylor
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-18 21:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-18 20:35 [RFC/PATCH 0/6] hash-object: use fsck to check objects Jeff King
2023-01-18 20:35 ` [PATCH 1/6] t1007: modernize malformed object tests Jeff King
2023-01-18 21:13 ` Taylor Blau
2023-01-18 20:35 ` [PATCH 2/6] t1006: stop using 0-padded timestamps Jeff King
2023-01-18 20:36 ` [PATCH 3/6] t7030: stop using invalid tag name Jeff King
2023-01-18 20:41 ` [PATCH 4/6] t: use hash-object --literally when created malformed objects Jeff King
2023-01-18 21:19 ` Taylor Blau
2023-01-19 2:06 ` Jeff King
2023-01-18 20:43 ` [PATCH 5/6] fsck: provide a function to fsck buffer without object struct Jeff King
2023-01-18 21:24 ` Taylor Blau
2023-01-19 2:07 ` Jeff King
2023-01-18 20:44 ` [PATCH 6/6] hash-object: use fsck for object checks Jeff King
2023-01-18 21:34 ` Taylor Blau [this message]
2023-01-19 2:31 ` Jeff King
2023-02-01 12:50 ` Jeff King
2023-02-01 13:08 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2023-02-01 20:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-01-18 20:46 ` [RFC/PATCH 0/6] hash-object: use fsck to check objects Jeff King
2023-01-18 20:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-01-18 21:38 ` Taylor Blau
2023-01-19 2:03 ` Jeff King
2023-01-19 1:39 ` Jeff King
2023-01-19 23:13 ` [PATCH 7/6] fsck: do not assume NUL-termination of buffers Jeff King
2023-01-19 23:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-01-21 9:36 ` [RFC/PATCH 0/6] hash-object: use fsck to check objects René Scharfe
2023-01-22 7:48 ` Jeff King
2023-01-22 11:39 ` René Scharfe
2023-02-01 14:06 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Y8hlyr0o6gs9omI5@nand.local \
--to=me@ttaylorr.com \
--cc=avarab@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=l.s.r@web.de \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* 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
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
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).