summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/t/lib-pack.sh
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2018-05-29Sync with Git 2.17.1Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-0/+12
* maint: (25 commits) Git 2.17.1 Git 2.16.4 Git 2.15.2 Git 2.14.4 Git 2.13.7 fsck: complain when .gitmodules is a symlink index-pack: check .gitmodules files with --strict unpack-objects: call fsck_finish() after fscking objects fsck: call fsck_finish() after fscking objects fsck: check .gitmodules content fsck: handle promisor objects in .gitmodules check fsck: detect gitmodules files fsck: actually fsck blob data fsck: simplify ".git" check index-pack: make fsck error message more specific verify_path: disallow symlinks in .gitmodules update-index: stat updated files earlier verify_dotfile: mention case-insensitivity in comment verify_path: drop clever fallthrough skip_prefix: add case-insensitive variant ...
2018-05-21index-pack: check .gitmodules files with --strictLibravatar Jeff King1-0/+12
Now that the internal fsck code has all of the plumbing we need, we can start checking incoming .gitmodules files. Naively, it seems like we would just need to add a call to fsck_finish() after we've processed all of the objects. And that would be enough to cover the initial test included here. But there are two extra bits: 1. We currently don't bother calling fsck_object() at all for blobs, since it has traditionally been a noop. We'd actually catch these blobs in fsck_finish() at the end, but it's more efficient to check them when we already have the object loaded in memory. 2. The second pass done by fsck_finish() needs to access the objects, but we're actually indexing the pack in this process. In theory we could give the fsck code a special callback for accessing the in-pack data, but it's actually quite tricky: a. We don't have an internal efficient index mapping oids to packfile offsets. We only generate it on the fly as part of writing out the .idx file. b. We'd still have to reconstruct deltas, which means we'd basically have to replicate all of the reading logic in packfile.c. Instead, let's avoid running fsck_finish() until after we've written out the .idx file, and then just add it to our internal packed_git list. This does mean that the objects are "in the repository" before we finish our fsck checks. But unpack-objects already exhibits this same behavior, and it's an acceptable tradeoff here for the same reason: the quarantine mechanism means that pushes will be fully protected. In addition to a basic push test in t7415, we add a sneaky pack that reverses the usual object order in the pack, requiring that index-pack access the tree and blob during the "finish" step. This already works for unpack-objects (since it will have written out loose objects), but we'll check it with this sneaky pack for good measure. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
2018-03-27t/helper: merge test-sha1 into test-toolLibravatar Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy1-1/+1
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-11-26test: replace shebangs with descriptions in shell librariesLibravatar Jonathan Nieder1-2/+0
A #! line in these files is misleading, since these scriptlets are meant to be sourced with '.' (using whatever shell sources them) instead of run directly using the interpreter named on the #! line. Removing the #! line shouldn't hurt syntax highlighting since these files have filenames ending with '.sh'. For documentation, add a brief description of how the files are meant to be used in place of the shebang line. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-10-31Fix '\%o' for printf from coreutilsLibravatar Kacper Kornet1-4/+4
The printf utility provided by coreutils when interpreting '\%o' format does not recognize %o as formatting directive. For example printf '\%o 0 returns \%o and warning: ignoring excess arguments, starting with ‘0’, which results in failed tests in t5309-pack-delta-cycles.sh. In most shells the test ends with success as the printf is a builtin utility. Fix it by using '\\%o' which is interpreted consistently in all versions of printf. Signed-off-by: Kacper Kornet <draenog@pld-linux.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-08-24add tests for indexing packs with delta cyclesLibravatar Jeff King1-0/+22
If we receive a broken or malicious pack from a remote, we will feed it to index-pack. As index-pack processes the objects as a stream, reconstructing and hashing each object to get its name, it is not very susceptible to doing the wrong with bad data (it simply notices that the data is bogus and aborts). However, one question raised on the list is whether it could be susceptible to problems during the delta-resolution phase. In particular, can a cycle in the packfile deltas cause us to go into an infinite loop or cause any other problem? The answer is no. We cannot have a cycle of delta-base offsets, because they go only in one direction (the OFS_DELTA object mentions its base by an offset towards the beginning of the file, and we explicitly reject negative offsets). We can have a cycle of REF_DELTA objects, which refer to base objects by sha1 name. However, index-pack does not know these sha1 names ahead of time; it has to reconstruct the objects to get their names, and it cannot do so if there is a delta cycle (in other words, it does not even realize there is a cycle, but only that there are items that cannot be resolved). Even though we can reason out that index-pack should handle this fine, let's add a few tests to make sure it behaves correctly. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-08-24sha1-lookup: handle duplicate keys with GIT_USE_LOOKUPLibravatar Jeff King1-0/+78
The sha1_entry_pos function tries to be smart about selecting the middle of a range for its binary search by looking at the value differences between the "lo" and "hi" constraints. However, it is unable to cope with entries with duplicate keys in the sorted list. We may hit a point in the search where both our "lo" and "hi" point to the same key. In this case, the range of values between our endpoints is 0, and trying to scale the difference between our key and the endpoints over that range is undefined (i.e., divide by zero). The current code catches this with an "assert(lov < hiv)". Moreover, after seeing that the first 20 byte of the key are the same, we will try to establish a value from the 21st byte. Which is nonsensical. Instead, we can detect the case that we are in a run of duplicates, and simply do a final comparison against any one of them (since they are all the same, it does not matter which). If the keys match, we have found our entry (or one of them, anyway). If not, then we know that we do not need to look further, as we must be in a run of the duplicate key. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>