git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [PATCH] refs: fix interleaving hook calls with reference-transaction hook

From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date
Aug 7, 2020, 07:58 UTC
Message-ID
<20200807075837.GA32344@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To
<63fb363375b515b903ed1269d10124b727c1d1cc.1596783732.git.ps@pks.im>
On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 09:05:58AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
Show 15 quoted lines
> In order to not repeatedly search for the reference-transaction hook in
> case it's getting called multiple times, we use a caching mechanism to
> only call `find_hook()` once. What was missed though is that the return
> value of `find_hook()` actually comes from a static strbuf, which means
> it will get overwritten when calling `find_hook()` again. As a result,
> we may call the wrong hook with parameters of the reference-transaction
> hook.
> 
> This scenario was spotted in the wild when executing a git-push(1) with
> multiple references, where there are interleaving calls to both the
> update and the reference-transaction hook. While initial calls to the
> reference-transaction hook work as expected, it will stop working after
> the next invocation of the update hook. The result is that we now start
> calling the update hook with parameters and stdin of the
> reference-transaction hook.

That makes sense. I think of push as a single transaction, but that's only if the caller sends the "atomic" capability. Otherwise get one per ref.

Show 13 quoted lines
> diff --git a/refs.c b/refs.c
> index 2dd851fe81..17e515b288 100644
> --- a/refs.c
> +++ b/refs.c
> @@ -2044,7 +2044,7 @@ static int run_transaction_hook(struct ref_transaction *transaction,
>  	if (hook == &hook_not_found)
>  		return ret;
>  	if (!hook)
> -		hook = find_hook("reference-transaction");
> +		hook = xstrdup_or_null(find_hook("reference-transaction"));
>  	if (!hook) {
>  		hook = &hook_not_found;
>  		return ret;

The fix here looks obviously correct, though I have to wonder if the caching is even worth it. It's saving us an access() call, but we're about to exec a whole sub-process.

It's perhaps more justifiable when there isn't a hook (we're still just paying that one access(), but it's proportionally bigger). I kind of doubt it's measurable, though, since a ref write requires a bunch of syscalls anyway.

-Peff
Previous: Patrick SteinhardtNext: Patrick Steinhardt
Message 2 of 9 in “refs: fix interleaving hook calls with reference-transaction hook”
  1. refs: fix interleaving hook calls with reference-transaction hookPatrick Steinhardt, Aug 7, 2020
  2. Jeff KingAug 7, 2020
  3. Patrick SteinhardtAug 7, 2020
  4. Jeff KingAug 7, 2020
  5. Patrick SteinhardtAug 7, 2020
  6. Junio C HamanoAug 7, 2020
  7. Jeff KingAug 7, 2020
  8. Jeff KingAug 7, 2020
  9. Junio C HamanoAug 7, 2020

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.