Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] shallow.c: use '{commit,rollback}_shallow_file'

From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Date: Jun 3, 2020, 05:16 UTC
Message-ID: <20200603051631.GA20678@syl.local>
In-Reply-To: <20200603045248.GA20266@syl.local>

On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 10:52:48PM -0600, Taylor Blau wrote:

Show 80 quoted lines

> Hi Jonathan,
>
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 08:42:13PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Taylor Blau wrote:
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
> > > ---
> > >  builtin/receive-pack.c   |  4 ++--
> > >  commit.h                 |  2 ++
> > >  fetch-pack.c             | 10 +++++-----
> > >  shallow.c                | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > >  t/t5537-fetch-shallow.sh | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  5 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> > I haven't investigated the cause yet, but I've run into an interesting
> > bug that bisects to this commit.  Jay Conrod (cc-ed) reports:
> >
> > | I believe this is also the cause of Go toolchain test failures we've
> > | been seeing. Go uses git to fetch dependencies.
> > |
> > | The problem we're seeing can be reproduced with the script below. It
> > | should print "success". Instead, the git merge-base command fails
> > | because the commit 7303f77963648d5f1ec5e55eccfad8e14035866c
> > | (origin/master) has no history.
> >
> > -- 8< --
> > #!/bin/bash
> >
> > set -euxo pipefail
> > if [ -d legacytest ]; then
> >   echo "legacytest directory already exists" >&2
> >   exit 1
> > fi
> > mkdir legacytest
> > cd legacytest
> > git init --bare
> > git config protocol.version 2
> > git config fetch.writeCommitGraph true
> > git remote add origin -- https://github.com/rsc/legacytest
> > git fetch -f --depth=1 origin refs/heads/master:refs/heads/master
> > git fetch -f origin 'refs/heads/*:refs/heads/*' 'refs/tags/*:refs/tags/*'
> > git fetch --unshallow -f origin
> > git merge-base --is-ancestor -- v2.0.0 7303f77963648d5f1ec5e55eccfad8e14035866c
> > echo success
> > -- >8 --
>
> Thanks to you and Jay for the report and reproduction script. Indeed, I
> can reproduce this on the tip of master (which is equivalent to v2.27.0
> at the time of writing).
>
> > The fetch.writeCommitGraph part is interesting.  When does a commit
> > graph file get written in this sequence of operations?  In an
> > unshallow operation, does the usual guard against writing a commit
> > graph in a shallow repo get missed?
>
> The last 'git fetch' is the one that writes the commit-graph. You can
> verify this by sticking a 'ls objects/info' after each 'git' invocation
> in your script.
>
> Here's where things get weird, though. Prior to this patch, Git would
> pick up that the repository is shallow before unshallowing, but never
> invalidate this fact after unshallowing. That means that once we got to
> 'write_commit_graph', we'd exit immediately since it appears as if the
> repository is shallow.
>
> In this patch, we don't do that anymore, since we rightly unset the fact
> that we are (were) shallow.
>
> In a debugger, I ran your script and a 'git commit-graph write --split
> --reachable' side-by-side, and found an interesting discrepancy: some
> commits (loaded from 'copy_oids_to_commits') *don't* have their parents
> set when invoked from 'git fetch', but *do* when invoked as 'git
> commit-graph write ...'.
>
> I'm not an expert in the object cache, but my hunch is that when we
> fetch these objects they're marked as parsed without having loaded their
> parents. When we load them again via 'lookup_object', we get objects
> that look parsed, but don't have parents where they otherwise should.

Ah, this only sort of has to do with the object cache. In 'parse_commit_buffer()' we stop parsing parents in the case that the repository is shallow (this goes back to 7f3140cd23 (git repack: keep commits hidden by a graft, 2009-07-23)).

That makes me somewhat nervous. We're going to keep any objects opened prior to unshallowing in the cache, along with their hidden parents. I suspect that this is why Git has kept the shallow bit as sticky for so long.

I'm not quite sure what to do here. I think that any of the following would work:

  * Keep the shallow bit sticky, at least for fetch.writeCommitGraph
    (i.e., pretend as if fetch.writecommitgraph=0 in the case of
    '--unshallow').

  * Dump the object cache upon un-shallowing, forcing us to re-discover
    the parents when they are no longer hidden behind a graft.

The latter seems like the most complete feasible fix. The former should work fine to address this case, but I wonder if there are other call-sites that are affected by this behavior. My hunch is that this is a unique case, since it requires going from shallow to unshallow in the same process.

I have yet to create a smaller test case, but the following should be sufficient to dump the cache of parsed objects upon shallowing or un-shallowing:

diff --git a/shallow.c b/shallow.c
index b826de9b67..06db857f53 100644
--- a/shallow.c
+++ b/shallow.c
@@ -90,6 +90,9 @@ static void reset_repository_shallow(struct repository *r)
 {
 	r->parsed_objects->is_shallow = -1;
 	stat_validity_clear(r->parsed_objects->shallow_stat);
+
+	parsed_object_pool_clear(r->parsed_objects);
+	r->parsed_objects = parsed_object_pool_new();
 }

 int commit_shallow_file(struct repository *r, struct shallow_lock *lk)

Is this something we want to go forward with? Are there some
far-reaching implications that I'm missing?

> I'm going to CC Stolee to see if he has any thoughts on how to handle
> this and/or if my idea is on the right track.
>
> > "rm -fr objects/info/commit-graphs" recovers the full history in the
> > repo, so this is not a case of writing the wrong shallows --- it's
> > only a commit graph issue.
> >
> > I'll take a closer look, but thought I'd give others a chance to look
> > to in case there's something obvious. :)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jonathan
>
> Thanks,
> Taylor

Thanks,
Taylor