Re: [PATCH v1] Fix bugs preventing adding updated cache entries to the name hash

From: Ben Peart <peartben@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 15, 2018, 18:44 UTC
Message-ID: <339cd7f7-9ca0-62cf-ea46-588be119eedd@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqfu515ihj.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

On 3/15/2018 1:58 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 26 quoted lines

> Ben Peart <benpeart@microsoft.com> writes:
> 
>> Update replace_index_entry() to clear the CE_HASHED flag from the new cache
>> entry so that it can add it to the name hash in set_index_entry()
> 
> OK.
> 
>> diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c
>> index 977921d90c..bdfa552861 100644
>> --- a/read-cache.c
>> +++ b/read-cache.c
>> @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ static void replace_index_entry(struct index_state *istate, int nr, struct cache
>>   	replace_index_entry_in_base(istate, old, ce);
>>   	remove_name_hash(istate, old);
>>   	free(old);
>> +	ce->ce_flags &= ~CE_HASHED;
>>   	set_index_entry(istate, nr, ce);
>>   	ce->ce_flags |= CE_UPDATE_IN_BASE;
>>   	mark_fsmonitor_invalid(istate, ce);
> 
> As we are removing "old" that is not "ce", an earlier call to
> remove_name_hash() that clears the CE_HASHED bit from the cache
> entry does not help us at all.  We need to clear the bit from "ce"
> ourselves before calling set_index_entry() on it, otherwise the call
> would become a no-op wrt the name hash.  Makes sense.
>

Correct. As you note below, this one line is sufficient to fix the actual bug.

Show 11 quoted lines

> Makes me wonder why "ce" which is a replacement for what is in the
> index already has the hashed bit, though.  Is that the failure to
> use copy_cache_entry() in the caller the other part of this patch
> fixes?  To me it looks like copy_cache_entry() is designed for
> copying an entry's data to another one that has a different name,
> but in the refresh codepath, we _know_ we are replacing an old entry
> with an entry with the same name, so it somehow feels a bit strange
> to use copy_cache_entry(), instead of doing memcpy() (and possibly
> dropping the HASHED bit from the new copy--but wouldn't that become
> unnecessary with the fix to replace_index_entry() we saw above?)
>

This 2nd part of the patch was more for code cleanliness. When I was investigating why the hashed bit was set, it was caused by this memcpy(). When I examined the rest of the code base, I only found 1 other instance (in dup_entry()) that did a straight memcpy(), the rest used the copy_cache_entry() macro. I updated this code to match that pattern as it would have prevented the bug as well though as you correctly point out, it is not necessary with the other fix.

> Is this fix something we can demonstrate in a new test, by the way?
>

Unfortunately I was unable to find a way to reliably demonstrate this bug and fix with a new test. I only ran across it while working on another patch series that ends up triggering it more reliably.

The symptom was that occasionally in very specific circumstances a git status call would incorrectly show some directories as having untracked files when there were actually no untracked files in that directory. A subsequent call to status would correctly show no untracked files as would git status -uall.

I do have a test for this fix as part of the other patch series but thought I'd submit this bug fix separately as it may be a while before the other patch series is ready.

> Thanks.
>