Re: [RFC/PATCH] fsck: do not canonicalize modes in trees we are checking

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 23, 2014, 16:30 UTC
Message-ID: <20140923163008.GA21591@peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20140923162343.GA20379@debian>

[-cc Kirill, as his address seem out-of-date]

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 04:23:43PM +0000, Edward Thomson wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:47:51AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > As far as I can tell, fsck's mode-checking has been totally broken
> > basically forever. Which makes me a little nervous to fix it. :)
> > linux.git does have some bogus modes, but they are 100664, which is
> > specifically ignored here unless "fsck --strict" is in effect.
> 
> I'm in favor of checking the mode in fsck, at least when --strict.  
> But I would suggest we be lax (by default) about other likely-to-exist
> but strictly invalid modes to prevent peoples previously workable
> repositories from being now broken.
> 
> I have, for example, encountered 100775 in the wild, and would argue that
> like 100644, it should probably not fail unless we are in --strict mode.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. The big question is: what breakage have we seen in the wild? :)

I think treating 100775 the same as 100664 makes sense (want to do a patch?). Do we know of any others? I guess we can collect them as time goes on and reports come in. That's not the nicest thing for people with such repos, but then again, their repos _are_ broken (and it's only really a showstopper if they are trying to push to somebody with receive.fsckObjects turned on).

-Peff