From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Anders Kaseorg <andersk@mit.edu>, Jeff King <peff@peff.net>,
git@vger.kernel.org, Andreas Heiduk <andreas.heiduk@mathema.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] receive-pack: Protect current branch for bare repository worktree
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 17:04:58 +0100 (CET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2111091638110.54@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqpmra40p6.fsf@gitster.g>
Hi Junio,
On Mon, 8 Nov 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
> >> @@ -1456,11 +1456,11 @@ static const char *update_worktree(unsigned char *sha1, const struct worktree *w
> >> work_tree = worktree->path;
> >> else if (git_work_tree_cfg)
> >> work_tree = git_work_tree_cfg;
> >
> > Not a fault of this patch at all, but I am not sure if this existing
> > bit of code is correct. Everything else in this function works by
> > assuming that the worktree that comes from the caller was checked
> > with find_shared_symref("HEAD", name) to ensure that, if not NULL,
> > it has the branch checked out and updating to the new commit given
> > as the other parameter makes sense.
> >
> > But this "fall back to configured worktree" is taken when the gave
> > us NULL worktree or worktree without the .path member (i.e. no
> > checkout), and it must have come from a NULL return from the call to
> > find_shared_symref(). IOW, the function said "no worktree
> > associated with the repository checks out that branch being
> > updated." I doubt it is a bug to update the working tree of the
> > repository with the commit pushed to some branch that is *not* HEAD,
> > only because core.worktree was set to point at an explicit location.
>
> Not "I doubt", but I suspect it is a bug. Sorry.
>
> But in practice, especially with the new code structure, we'd never
> flip do_update_worktree on unless find_shared_symref() says that the
> ref we are updating in the function is what is checked out, which
> means worktree is always non-NULL when we call update_worktree().
>
> So, unless there is some situation where worktree->path is NULL for
> a worktree with a checkout, the "else if" above is a dead code, I
> think.
>
> Similarly, I suspect that is_bare_repository() call the patch moved
> into the if/else if/ chain is even reachable with the updated
> caller. find_shared_symref() is always called, and unless it gives
> a non-NULL worktree, do_update_worktree never becomes true.
>
> Anyway, enough bug finding in the existing code. I think the
> update-instead was Dscho's invention and when the codepath was
> updated to be worktree ready, Dscho helped Hariom to do so, so
> I'll CC Dscho to see if he has input.
It's such a blast from the past! I first worked on this in 1404bcbb6b3
(receive-pack: add another option for receive.denyCurrentBranch,
2014-11-26), and Hariom & I worked on this last year, before the pandemic
hit over here (and therefore it feels like a decade ago).
The `worktree` variable was introduced in 4ef346482d6
(receive.denyCurrentBranch: respect all worktrees, 2020-02-23), and since
the patch under discussion does away with the `is_bare_repository()` call,
I think that we now can safely change these lines:
if (do_update_worktree) {
ret = update_worktree(new_oid->hash, find_shared_symref("HEAD", name));
if (ret)
return ret;
}
to pass `worktree` directly to the `update_worktree()` function, rather
than calling `find_shared_symref()` again.
And since that is the case, I think your analysis is correct, we always
call `update_worktree()` with a `worktree` parameter that is non-`NULL`.
As to the riddle about why we check `git_work_tree_cfg` at all? Back when
I introduced support for `denyCurrentBranch = updateInstead`, there were
no worktrees, the only way to give a bare repository a worktree was via
that config.
And from how I read the code in `worktree`, both "main" and "linked"
worktrees do have a `path` attribute that is non-`NULL`. We therefore
really have to look at the `is_bare` attribute to know whether
`worktree->path` _actually_ refers to a worktree. But as you also pointed
out, `find_shared_symref()` skips any worktree with non-zero `is_bare`.
We also can be pretty certain that only the `if (worktree &&
worktree->path)` arm is hit, we should probably turn the code into:
if (!worktree || (!worktree->path && !worktree->is_bare))
BUG("update_worktree() called without a path");
if (worktree->is_bare)
return "denyCurrentBranch = updateInstead needs a worktree";
work_tree = worktree->path;
Ciao,
Dscho
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-09 16:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-08 20:16 [PATCH v3 2/2] receive-pack: Protect current branch for bare repository worktree Anders Kaseorg
2021-11-08 23:28 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-11-09 0:44 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-11-09 16:04 ` Johannes Schindelin [this message]
2021-11-09 1:10 ` Anders Kaseorg
2021-11-09 3:00 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] fetch: Protect branches checked out in all worktrees Anders Kaseorg
2021-11-09 3:00 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] receive-pack: Clean dead code from update_worktree() Anders Kaseorg
2021-11-09 16:16 ` Johannes Schindelin
2021-11-09 22:58 ` Anders Kaseorg
2021-11-09 3:00 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] receive-pack: Protect current branch for bare repository worktree Anders Kaseorg
2021-11-09 16:22 ` Johannes Schindelin
2021-11-09 23:03 ` Anders Kaseorg
2021-11-09 23:09 ` [PATCH v5 1/4] fetch: Protect branches checked out in all worktrees Anders Kaseorg
2021-11-09 23:09 ` [PATCH v5 2/4] receive-pack: Clean dead code from update_worktree() Anders Kaseorg
2021-11-10 3:57 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-11-10 12:11 ` Johannes Schindelin
2021-11-09 23:09 ` [PATCH v5 3/4] receive-pack: Protect current branch for bare repository worktree Anders Kaseorg
2021-11-10 4:00 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-11-09 23:09 ` [PATCH v5 4/4] branch: Protect branches checked out in all worktrees Anders Kaseorg
2021-11-10 4:03 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-11-10 3:56 ` [PATCH v5 1/4] fetch: " Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-11-10 12:18 ` Johannes Schindelin
2021-11-10 23:46 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-11-11 0:11 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-11-10 22:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-11-10 23:33 ` Anders Kaseorg
2021-11-09 3:00 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] branch: " Anders Kaseorg
2021-11-09 16:24 ` Johannes Schindelin
2021-11-09 16:09 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] fetch: " Johannes Schindelin
2021-11-09 22:52 ` Anders Kaseorg
2021-11-09 23:00 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-11-09 23:28 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-11-09 23:32 ` Anders Kaseorg
2021-11-09 15:37 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] receive-pack: Protect current branch for bare repository worktree Johannes Schindelin
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=nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2111091638110.54@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet \
--to=johannes.schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=andersk@mit.edu \
--cc=andreas.heiduk@mathema.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--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).