Re: [PATCH v7 01/33] setup: call setup_git_directory_gently before accessing refs

> On Tue, 2016-03-01 at 03:35 -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 07:52:34PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > 
> > > Usually, git calls some form of setup_git_directory at startup. 
> > >  But
> > > sometimes, it doesn't.  Usually, that's OK because it's not
> > > really
> > > using the repository.  But in some cases, it is using the repo. 
> > >  In
> > > those cases, either setup_git_directory_gently must be called, or
> > > the
> > > repository (e.g. the refs) must not be accessed.
> > 
> > It's actually not just setup_git_directory(). We can also use
> > check_repository_format(), which is used by enter_repo() (and hence
> > by
> > things like upload-pack). I think the rule really ought to be: if
> > we
> > didn't have check_repository_format_gently() tell us we have a
> > valid
> > repo, we should not access any repo elements (refs, objects, etc).
> 
> I'll change that commit message to say
> "check_repository_format_gently".
> 
> > > diff --git a/builtin/grep.c b/builtin/grep.
> > [snip: this is a probably-good behavior change]
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > My fix for this was to teach read_mailmap to avoid looking for
> > HEAD:.mailmap if we are not in a repository, but to continue with
> > the
> > others (.mailmap in the cwd, and the mailmap.file config variable).
> > ...
> > But I do think your patch is a potential regression there, if
> > anybody
> > does do that.
> 
> Your version sounds better.  But I don't see it in the patch set you
> sent earlier? 
> 
> > > diff --git a/git.c b/git.c
> > > index 6cc0c07..51e0508 100644
> > > --- a/git.c
> > > +++ b/git.c
> > > @@ -376,7 +376,7 @@ static struct cmd_struct commands[] = {
> > >  	{ "am", cmd_am, RUN_SETUP | NEED_WORK_TREE },
> > >  	{ "annotate", cmd_annotate, RUN_SETUP },
> > >  	{ "apply", cmd_apply, RUN_SETUP_GENTLY },
> > > -	{ "archive", cmd_archive },
> > > +	{ "archive", cmd_archive, RUN_SETUP_GENTLY },
> > >  	{ "bisect--helper", cmd_bisect__helper, RUN_SETUP },
> > >  	{ "blame", cmd_blame, RUN_SETUP },
> > >  	{ "branch", cmd_branch, RUN_SETUP },
> > 
> > I didn't have to touch this case in my experimenting. I wonder if
> > it's
> > because I resolved the "grep" case a little differently.
> > 
> > I taught get_ref_cache() to only assert() that we have a repository
> > when
> > we are looking at the main ref-cache, not a submodule. In theory,
> > we
> > can
> > look at a submodule from inside an outer non-repo (it's not really
> > a
> > submodule then, but just a plain git dir). I don't think there's
> > anything in git right now that says you can't do so, though I think
> > your
> > refs-backend work does introduce that restriction (because it
> > actually
> > requires the submodules to use the same backend).
> > 
> > So with that requirement, I think we do need to require a repo even
> > to
> > access submodule refs. Is that what triggered this change?
> 
> No.  What triggered this change was a test failure with your earlier
> patch on master -- none of my stuff at all.  The failing command was:
> 
> git archive --remote=. HEAD
> 
> When writing my patch, I had assumed that the issue was the
> resolve_ref
> on the HEAD that's an argument -- but it's not.  The actual traceback
> is:
> 
> #0  die (
>     err=err@entry=0x57ddb0 "BUG: resolve_ref called without
> initializing repo") at usage.c:99
> #1  0x00000000004f7ed9 in resolve_ref_1 (sb_refname=0x7c4a50
> <sb_refname>, 
>     sb_contents=0x7fffffffcfc0, sb_path=0x7fffffffcfe0,
> flags=0x7fffffffdaaa, 
>     sha1=0x7fffffffd100 "\b\326\377\377\377\177",
> resolve_flags=5572384, 
>     refname=0x2 <error: Cannot access memory at address 0x2>)
>     at refs/files-backend.c:1429
> #2  resolve_ref_unsafe (refname=refname@entry=0x550b3b "HEAD", 
>     resolve_flags=resolve_flags@entry=0, 
>     sha1=sha1@entry=0x7fffffffd100 "\b\326\377\377\377\177", 
>     flags=flags@entry=0x7fffffffd0fc) at refs/files-backend.c:1600
> #3  0x00000000004ffe69 in read_config () at remote.c:471
> #4  0x0000000000500235 in read_config () at remote.c:705
> #5  remote_get_1 (name=0x7fffffffdaaa ".", 
>     get_default=get_default@entry=0x4fe230 <remote_for_branch>)
>     at remote.c:688
> #6  0x00000000005004ca in remote_get (name=<optimized out>) at
> remote.c:713
> #7  0x00000000004159d8 in run_remote_archiver (name_hint=0x0, 
>     exec=0x550720 "git-upload-archive", remote=<optimized out>, 
>     argv=0x7fffffffd608, argc=2) at builtin/archive.c:35
> #8  cmd_archive (argc=2, argv=0x7fffffffd608, prefix=0x0)
>     at builtin/archive.c:104
> #9  0x0000000000406051 in run_builtin (argv=0x7fffffffd608, argc=3, 
>     p=0x7bd7a0 <commands+96>) at git.c:357
> #10 handle_builtin (argc=3, argv=0x7fffffffd608) at git.c:540
> #11 0x000000000040519a in main (argc=3, av=<optimized out>) at
> git.c:671
> 
> > I'd think you would need a matching line inside cmd_archive, too.
> > It
> > should allow "--remote" without a repo, but generating a local
> > archive
> > does need one.  And indeed, I see in write_archive() that we run
> > setup_git_repository ourselves, and die if we're not in a git repo.
> > So
> > I'm puzzled about which code path accesses the refs.
> 
> I agree that  --remote should work without a repo,  It seems that we
> do
> n't test this and we probably should.  
> 
> I'm not sure what the right way to fix this is -- in read_config,
> we're
> about to access some stuff in a repo (config, HEAD).  It's OK to skip
> that stuff if we're not in a repo, but we don't want to run
> setup_git_directory twice (that breaks some stuff), and some of the
> other callers have already called it.  On top of your earlier
> repo_initialized patch, we could add the following to read_config:
> 
> +       if (!repo_initialized) {
> +               int nongit = 0;
> +               setup_git_directory_gently(&nongit);
> +               if (nongit)
> +                       return;
> +       }
> 
> But that patch I think was not intended to be permanent.  Still, it
> does seem odd that there's no straightforward way to know if the repo
> is initialized. Am I missing something?