Re: [PATCH] read-cache: close index.lock in do_write_index

> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:05:23PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
>> From: Jeff Hostetler <jeffhost@microsoft.com>
>>
>> Teach do_write_index() to close the index.lock file
>> before getting the mtime and updating the istate.timestamp
>> fields.
>>
>> On Windows, a file's mtime is not updated until the file is
>> closed.  On Linux, the mtime is set after the last flush.
>
> I wondered at first what this would mean for atomicity. The original
> code does an fstat, so we're sure to get the timestamp of what we just
> wrote.
>
> I think we should be OK after your change, though. We're stat()ing the
> lockfile itself, so nobody else should be touching it (because they'd be
> violating the lock to do so).
>
>> -static int do_write_index(struct index_state *istate, int newfd,
>> +static int do_write_index(struct index_state *istate, struct tempfile *tempfile,
>>  			  int strip_extensions)
>> [...]
>> -	if (ce_flush(&c, newfd, istate->sha1) || fstat(newfd, &st))
>> +	if (ce_flush(&c, newfd, istate->sha1))
>> +		return -1;
>> +	if (close_tempfile(tempfile))
>> +		return error(_("could not close '%s'"), tempfile->filename.buf);
>> +	if (lstat(tempfile->filename.buf, &st))
>>  		return -1;
>
> So now we unconditionally close in do_write_index(), but I don't see any
> close_tempfile() calls going away. For the call in write_shared_index(),
> that's because we either call delete_tempfile() or rename_tempfile(),
> either of which would close as needed, but can handle an already-closed
> file.
>
> The other caller is do_write_locked_index(), which accepts either a
> flag: either COMMIT_LOCK, CLOSE_LOCK, or neither. COMMIT_LOCK is OK; it
> can handle the already-closed file. CLOSE_LOCK is obviously fine. It
> just becomes a noop. But when neither flag is set, now we close the
> lock. Are there any callers that will be affected?
>
> There are three callers, but I think they all eventually trace up to
> write_locked_index(). And grepping for callers of that function, it
> looks like each one uses either COMMIT_LOCK or CLOSE_LOCK.
>

> So perhaps we'd want to squash in (or perhaps do as a preparatory
> patch) something like:
>
> diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c
> index b0276fd55..db7a812af 100644
> --- a/read-cache.c
> +++ b/read-cache.c
> @@ -2193,14 +2193,16 @@ static int do_write_locked_index(struct index_state *istate, struct lock_file *l
>  	int ret = do_write_index(istate, &lock->tempfile, 0);
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
> +
> +	/* Callers must specify exactly one of COMMIT/CLOSE */
>  	assert((flags & (COMMIT_LOCK | CLOSE_LOCK)) !=
>  	       (COMMIT_LOCK | CLOSE_LOCK));
> +	assert((flags & (COMMIT_LOCK | CLOSE_LOCK)) != 0);
> +
>  	if (flags & COMMIT_LOCK)
>  		return commit_locked_index(lock);
> -	else if (flags & CLOSE_LOCK)
> -		return close_lock_file(lock);
>  	else
> -		return ret;
> +		return close_lock_file(lock);
>  }
>
>  static int write_split_index(struct index_state *istate,
>
> We could also get rid of CLOSE_LOCK entirely at this point. Or since
> these are the only two flags, just turn the flags field into a boolean
> "int commit_lock". But doing it as above is perhaps more readable
> (callers say CLOSE_LOCK instead of an unannotated "0"), and the extra
> assert will catch any topics in flight that add calls using "0" for
> flags.
>
> -Peff
>