Re: $GIT_DIR is no longer set when pre-commit hooks are called

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Aug 28, 2018, 12:50 UTC
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1808281442190.73@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
In-Reply-To: <20180827233706.GA11663@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Hi Peff,

On Mon, 27 Aug 2018, Jeff King wrote:

Show 27 quoted lines

> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 06:25:26PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 25 Aug 2018, Jeff King wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 04:16:00PM -0700, Gregory Oschwald wrote:
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/builtin/commit.c b/builtin/commit.c
> > > index 3bfeabc463..3670024a25 100644
> > > --- a/builtin/commit.c
> > > +++ b/builtin/commit.c
> > > @@ -1440,6 +1440,7 @@ int run_commit_hook(int editor_is_used, const char *index_file, const char *name
> > >  	int ret;
> > >  
> > >  	argv_array_pushf(&hook_env, "GIT_INDEX_FILE=%s", index_file);
> > > +	argv_array_pushf(&hook_env, "GIT_DIR=%s", get_git_dir());
> > 
> > We did something similar in sequencer.c, and it required setting
> > `GIT_WORK_TREE`, too, to avoid problems in worktrees. Do you need the same
> > here, too?
> 
> Hmm, good point. Maybe. If we're just trying to restore the original
> behavior (i.e., fix a regression), then this would behave as the
> original.
> 
> I'm not at all opposed to going beyond that and actually fixing more
> cases. But I am a little nervous of introducing a new regression, given
> the subtlety around some of our startup code.

I concur about the subtlety around the startup code. Quite a bit of that mess is now a bit easier to grok, thanks to my work to discover the GIT_DIR gently, but there are still monsters lurking in that code.

Having said that, I don't think that we can get away with setting GIT_DIR without GIT_WORK_TREE here. That would *definitely* introduce a bug, as far as I can tell.

> My current understanding is:
> 
>   - If we're setting GIT_DIR, it's probably always save to set

With s/save/safe/, I agree.

Show 17 quoted lines

>     GIT_WORK_TREE (or GIT_IMPLICIT_WORK_TREE=0 if there isn't a
>     worktree). I.e., there is no case I know that would be broken by
>     this.
> 
>   - Passing GIT_DIR to any sub-process operating in the context of our
>     repo (i.e., excluding cases where we're clearing local_repo_env) can
>     break a script that expects to do:
> 
>       cd /another/repo
>       git ...
> 
>     and operate in /another/repo. But such a script is already broken at
>     least in some cases, because running the initial command as:
> 
>       git --git-dir=/some/repo
> 
>     will mean that GIT_DIR is set.

Since this mailing list often indulges in tangent fest, I'll allow myself this one: `git --git-dir=...` should probably handle the case where GIT_DIR/GIT_WORK_TREE were set differently when the command was started, and if so, unset them.

>     already broken, though it may be small consolation to somebody whose
>     hook happened to work most of the time, because they do not pass in
>     GIT_DIR.

I seem to remember two reports about such funny way to do things. So they exist, I agree.

Show 13 quoted lines

>   - Any command that uses setup_work_tree() (which includes things with
>     NEED_WORK_TREE in git.c) would have always been setting GIT_DIR up
>     through v2.17.x. So any hooks they run would have seen it
>     consistently, and therefore are exempt from being regressed in the
>     case above.
> 
> So I _think_ it would be safe to:
> 
>   1. Set GIT_DIR again anytime we call setup_work_tree(), because that's
>      what has always happened.
> 
>   2. Start setting GIT_WORK_TREE at the same time. This didn't happen
>      before, but it can't break anybody, and might help.

With s/might help/will help in some edge cases/, I agree.

> That makes the rules for when GIT_DIR is set confusing, but at least it
> shouldn't regress. A more consistent rule of "hooks always see GIT_DIR"
> (or even "any sub-process always sees...") is easier to explain, but
> might break people in practice.

Indeed.

Show 6 quoted lines

> I notice also that sequencer.c sets an absolute path, since 09d7b6c6fa
> (sequencer: pass absolute GIT_DIR to exec commands, 2017-10-31). That
> does seem friendlier, though I wonder if could break any scripts. I
> cannot think of a case, unless the intermediate paths were no accessible
> to the uid running the process (but then, how would Git have generated
> the absolute path in the first place?).

Please note that (IIRC) this commit just reinstated the handling in git-sh-setup, which always set GIT_DIR to an absolute path. Scripts used in conjunction with `git rebase -i` would therefore have had to expect this.

Ciao, Dscho