From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "Utsav Shah via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>,
William Baker <William.Baker@microsoft.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Utsav Shah <ukshah2@illinois.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] fsmonitor: skip sanity check if the index is split
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:01:09 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqa793jhne.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqh83bjig6.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Mon, 11 Nov 2019 10:43:53 +0900")
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> "Utsav Shah via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> At the very least, this patch mitigates an over-eager check for split index
>> users while maintaining good invariants for the standard case.
>
> OK, it sounds more like this "it does not make any sense to compare
> the position in the fsmonitor bitmap (which covers the entire thing)
> with the position in just a split part of the index (which covers
> only the delta over the base index)"? If that is the case, it means
> that the "check" is even worse than being "over-eager"---it simply
> is not correct.
Having said all that, I wonder if we are doing the right thing with
or without 3444ec2e ("fsmonitor: don't fill bitmap with entries to
be removed", 2019-10-11) in the split-index mode in the first place.
The fact that your "loosen the check and allow 'pos' that identifies
a tracked path used by the fsmonitor bitmap to be larger than the
size of the istate->cache[]" patch under discussion is needed is
that 'pos' may sometimes be larger than isate->cache[] no? Then
what happens in this hunk, for example?
diff --git a/fsmonitor.c b/fsmonitor.c
index 231e83a94d..1f4aa1b150 100644
--- a/fsmonitor.c
+++ b/fsmonitor.c
@@ -14,8 +14,13 @@ struct trace_key trace_fsmonitor = TRACE_KEY_INIT(FSMONITOR);
static void fsmonitor_ewah_callback(size_t pos, void *is)
{
struct index_state *istate = (struct index_state *)is;
- struct cache_entry *ce = istate->cache[pos];
+ struct cache_entry *ce;
+ if (pos >= istate->cache_nr)
+ BUG("fsmonitor_dirty has more entries than the index (%"PRIuMAX" >= %u)",
+ (uintmax_t)pos, istate->cache_nr);
+
+ ce = istate->cache[pos];
ce->ce_flags &= ~CE_FSMONITOR_VALID;
The istate->cache[] is a dynamic array whose size is managed via the
usual ALLOC_GROW() using istate->cache_nr and istate->cache_alloc,
whether the split-index feature is in use. When your patch makes a
difference, then, doesn't the access to istate->cache[] pick up a
random garbage and then flip the bit?
Puzzled... In any case, "check is worse than over-eager, it simply
is wrong" I wrote in the message I am responding to is totally
incorrect, it seems. It smells like lifting the check would just
hide the underlying problem under the rug?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-11 2:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-08 7:09 [PATCH 0/1] fsmonitor: skip sanity check if the index is split Utsav Shah via GitGitGadget
2019-11-08 7:09 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Utsav Shah via GitGitGadget
2019-11-12 11:18 ` SZEDER Gábor
2019-11-12 21:08 ` Utsav Shah
2019-11-11 1:43 ` [PATCH 0/1] " Junio C Hamano
2019-11-11 2:01 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2019-11-11 16:55 ` Kevin Willford
2019-11-11 17:25 ` Utsav Shah
2019-11-11 18:21 ` Kevin Willford
2019-11-11 17:30 ` William Baker
2019-11-13 1:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-11-14 2:55 ` Utsav Shah
2019-11-14 16:41 ` William Baker
2019-11-15 5:04 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqa793jhne.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=William.Baker@microsoft.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
--cc=ukshah2@illinois.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).