Re: [PATCH 2/3] t7703: demonstrate object corruption with pack.packSizeLimit
- From
Victoria Dye <vdye@github.com>
- Date
- May 20, 2022, 19:42 UTC
- Message-ID
- <a060d672-df82-95a3-072a-7ab7b0566556@github.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <08da02fa74c211ae1019cb0a9f4e30cc239e1ab9.1653073280.git.me@ttaylorr.com>
Taylor Blau wrote:
Show 79 quoted lines
> When doing a `--geometric=<d>` repack, `git repack` determines a > splitting point among packs ordered by their object count such that: > > - each pack above the split has at least `<d>` times as many objects > as the next-largest pack by object count, and > - the first pack above the split has at least `<d>` times as many > object as the sum of all packs below the split line combined > > `git repack` then creates a pack containing all of the objects contained > in packs below the split line by running `git pack-objects > --stdin-packs` underneath. Once packs are moved into place, then any > packs below the split line are removed, since their objects were just > combined into a new pack. > > But `git repack` tries to be careful to avoid removing a pack that it > just wrote, by checking: > > struct packed_git *p = geometry->pack[i]; > if (string_list_has_string(&names, hash_to_hex(p->hash))) > continue; > > in the `delete_redundant` and `geometric` conditional towards the end of > `cmd_repack`. > > But it's possible to trick `git repack` into not recognizing a pack that > it just wrote when `names` is out-of-order (which violates > `string_list_has_string()`'s assumption that the list is sorted and thus > binary search-able). > > When this happens in just the right circumstances, it is possible to > remove a pack that we just wrote, leading to object corruption. > > Luckily, this is quite difficult to provoke in practice (for a couple of > reasons): > > - we ordinarily write just one pack, so `names` usually contains just > one entry, and is thus sorted > - when we do write more than one pack (e.g., due to `--max-pack-size`) > we have to: (a) write a pack identical to one that already > exists, (b) have that pack be below the split line, and (c) have > the set of packs written by `pack-objects` occur in an order which > tricks `string_list_has_string()`. > > Demonstrate the above scenario in a failing test, which causes `git > repack --geometric` to write a pack which occurs below the split line, > _and_ fail to recognize that it wrote that pack. > > The following patch will fix this bug. > > Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> > --- > t/t7703-repack-geometric.sh | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/t/t7703-repack-geometric.sh b/t/t7703-repack-geometric.sh > index 91bb2b37a8..2cd1de7295 100755 > --- a/t/t7703-repack-geometric.sh > +++ b/t/t7703-repack-geometric.sh > @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ test_description='git repack --geometric works correctly' > GIT_TEST_MULTI_PACK_INDEX=0 > > objdir=.git/objects > +packdir=$objdir/pack > midx=$objdir/pack/multi-pack-index > > test_expect_success '--geometric with no packs' ' > @@ -230,4 +231,50 @@ test_expect_success '--geometric chooses largest MIDX preferred pack' ' > ) > ' > > +test_expect_failure '--geometric with pack.packSizeLimit' ' > + git init pack-rewrite && > + test_when_finished "rm -fr pack-rewrite" && > + ( > + cd pack-rewrite && > + > + test-tool genrandom foo 1048576 >foo && > + test-tool genrandom bar 1048576 >bar && > +
I was a bit worried about this test being flaky in the future (relying on particular pseudorandomly-generated file contents and the subsequent ordering of hashes on the packs). But, since neither 'genrandom' nor the pack hash generation seem likely to change (and I can't come up with an alternative to this approach anyway), the test looks good as-is.
Show 38 quoted lines
> + git add foo bar &&
> + test_tick &&
> + git commit -m base &&
> +
> + git rev-parse HEAD:foo HEAD:bar >p1.objects &&
> + git rev-parse HEAD HEAD^{tree} >p2.objects &&
> +
> + # These two packs each contain two objects, so the following
> + # `--geometric` repack will try to combine them.
> + p1="$(git pack-objects $packdir/pack <p1.objects)" &&
> + p2="$(git pack-objects $packdir/pack <p2.objects)" &&
> +
> + # Remove any loose objects in packs, since we do not want extra
> + # copies around (which would mask over potential object
> + # corruption issues).
> + git prune-packed &&
> +
> + # Both p1 and p2 will be rolled up, but pack-objects will write
> + # three packs:
> + #
> + # - one containing object "foo",
> + # - another containing object "bar",
> + # - a final pack containing the commit and tree objects
> + # (identical to p2 above)
> + git repack --geometric 2 -d --max-pack-size=1048576 &&
> +
> + # Ensure `repack` can detect that the third pack it wrote
> + # (containing just the tree and commit objects) was identical to
> + # one that was below the geometric split, so that we can save it
> + # from deletion.
> + #
> + # If `repack` fails to do that, we will incorrectly delete p2,
> + # causing object corruption.
> + git fsck
> + )
> +'
> +
> test_done