list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: "韩欣(炽天)" <>
To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
Cc: Git List <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] send-pack: check atomic push before running GPG
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 01:35:05 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

在 2020/9/16 下午12:37, Junio C Hamano 写道:
> Jiang Xin <> writes:
>>>> -
>>>> -     if (!args->dry_run && push_cert_nonce)
>>>> -             cmds_sent = generate_push_cert(&req_buf, remote_refs, args,
>>>> -                                            cap_buf.buf, push_cert_nonce);
>>>> -
>>>>        /*
>>>>         * Clear the status for each ref and see if we need to send
>>>>         * the pack data.
>>> This "Clear the status for each ref" worries me.
>>> The generate_push_cert() function RELIES on ref->status and filters
>>> out the ref that failed to pass the local check from the generated
>>> push certificate.  If you let the loop (post context of this hunk)
>>> run, ref->status will be updated by it, so the net effect of this
>>> patch is that it breaks "non-atomic" case that pushes multiple refs
>>> and one of ref fails to pass the local check.
>>> IOW, generate_push_cert() MUST be called before this loop "clears
>>> the status for each ref" by assigning to ref->status.
>> The next block ("Finally, tell the other end!") is what we send
>> commands to "receive-pack", right after some of the status are reset
>> to REF_STATUS_OK or REF_STATUS_EXPECTING_REPORT by this chunk of code.
>> So moving the generate_push_cert() part right before the "Finally,
>> tell the other end!" part LGTM.
> Sorry, I do not follow.  The loop in question is the one before
> "Finally tell the other end".  The loop ends like so:
> 	for (ref = remote_refs; ref; ref = ref->next) {
> 		...
> 		if (args->dry_run || !status_report)
> 			ref->status = REF_STATUS_OK;
> 		else
> 	}
> and the patch moves a call to generate_push_cert() that looks at
> remote_refs _after_ this loop, but generate_push_cert() function
> uses a loop over remote_refs that uses check_to_send_update(), which
> looks at ref->status's value to decide what to do.  Its correct
> operation relies on ref->status NOT updated by the above loop.
> The loop prepares the status field so that we can then read and
> record the response against each ref updates from the other side.
> The ref->status field is set to EXPECTING_REPORT, later to be
> clobber the original value of ref->status at this point only because
> the loop depends on the fact that no check_to_send_update() call
> will happen after the loop (because the ref->status field the
> helper's operation depends on is already reset for the next phase of
> operation).  The patch that moves generate_push_cert() call below
> the loop, whether it is before or after the "Finally tell the other
> end" loop, is therefore fundamentally broken, isn't it?
> I do not think it would introduce such breakage if we teach
> generate_push_cert() to pay attention to the atomicity, and that can
> be done without reordering the calls in send_pack() to break the
> control flow.

Thank you for your reply. These loops here really confuse me at first.

But I found that the main effect of "Clear the status for each ref and
see if we need to send the pack data" is to help us do a pre-check on
the client side whether the push should be rejected. When the reference
should be pushed, whether the status was changed to REF_STATUS_OK or
REF_STATUS_EXPECTING_REPORT, it does not seem to affect the result of
function generate_push_cert(). check_to_send_update() in
generate_push_cert() only filters out references that needn't to be pushed.

Just like brian m. carlson said, "that would be a nice change; after
all, the user's key may involve a smartcard or a passphrase and avoiding
needless hassle for the user would be desirable". It increase the
perforcemance a little bit for failed atomic push and make it clear that
client side requirements and the other side requirements.

If there is something wrong with my understanding, I am very grateful
\that you can help me point out the problems.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-09-16 19:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-15  9:58 [PATCH 1/2] t5534: new test case for atomic signed push Han Xin
2020-09-15  9:58 ` [PATCH 2/2] send-pack: check atomic push before running GPG Han Xin
2020-09-15 21:02   ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-15 21:40     ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-16  1:53     ` Jiang Xin
2020-09-16  4:37       ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-16 11:49         ` Jiang Xin
2020-09-16 23:44           ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-18  4:50             ` [PATCH v2] send-pack: run GPG after atomic push checking Han Xin
2020-09-19  0:02               ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-19 14:47                 ` [PATCH v3] " Han Xin
2020-09-19 23:02                   ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-20  6:20                     ` [PATCH v4] " Han Xin
2020-09-16 17:35         ` 韩欣(炽天) [this message]
2020-09-15 20:31 ` [PATCH 1/2] t5534: new test case for atomic signed push Junio C Hamano
2020-09-16  0:34   ` brian m. carlson
2020-09-15 20:34 ` Junio C Hamano

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 \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 2/2] send-pack: check atomic push before running GPG' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this 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).