fsck: do not canonicalize modes in trees we are checking
Doing so means that we do not actually get to see bogus modes; they are converted into one of our known-good modes by decode_tree_entry. We want to see the raw data so that we can complain about it.
---
As far as I can tell, fsck's mode-checking has been totally broken basically forever. Which makes me a little nervous to fix it. :) linux.git does have some bogus modes, but they are 100664, which is specifically ignored here unless "fsck --strict" is in effect.
The implementation feels a bit hacky. The global is ugly, but it avoids having to pass options all through the call chain of init_tree_entry, update_tree_entry, etc.
Another option would be to have decode_tree_entry leave the raw mode in the tree_desc, and only canonicalize it during tree_entry_extract (and teach fsck to look at the raw data, not _extract). That would mean reverting 7146e66 (tree-walk: finally switch over tree descriptors to contain a pre-parsed entry, 2014-02-06). That commit says there's no real benefit at the time, but that future code might benefit. I don't know if that future code ever materialized (Kirill cc'd).
I thought at first that commit might have been responsible for this breakage, but I don't think so. The canonicalization has happened in tree_entry_extract since at least 2006, and we have always called that function in fsck.
fsck.c | 2 ++ t/t1450-fsck.sh | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ tree-walk.c | 4 +++- tree-walk.h | 3 +++ 4 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
fsck.c +2 -0
@@ -153,6 +153,7 @@ static int fsck_tree(struct tree *item, int strict, fsck_error error_func)unsigned o_mode;const char *o_name; + decode_tree_raw =1 ;init_tree_desc (&desc, item->buffer, item->size); o_mode =0 ;
@@ -213,6 +214,7 @@ static int fsck_tree(struct tree *item, int strict, fsck_error error_func) o_name = name; } + decode_tree_raw =0 ; retval =0 ;if (has_null_sha1) retval +=error_func (&item->object,FSCK_WARN ,"contains entries pointing to null sha1" );
t/t1450-fsck.sh +21 -0
@@ -176,6 +176,27 @@ test_expect_success 'malformatted tree object' ' grep "error in tree .*contains duplicate file entries" out ' +# Basically an 8-bit clean version of sed 's/$1/$2/g'. +munge_tree_bytes () { + perl -e ' + binmode(STDIN); binmode(STDOUT); + $_ = do { local $/; <STDIN> }; + s/$ARGV[0]/$ARGV[1]/g; + print + ' "$@" +} + +test_expect_success 'bogus mode in tree' ' + test_when_finished "remove_object \$T" && + T=$( + git cat-file tree HEAD >good && + munge_tree_bytes 100644 123456 <good >bad && + git hash-object -w -t tree bad + ) && + git fsck 2>out && + grep "warning.*contains bad file modes" out +' + test_expect_success 'tag pointing to nonexistent' ' cat >invalid-tag <<-\EOF && object ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
tree-walk.c +3 -1
@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@#include "tree.h" #include "pathspec.h" +int decode_tree_raw; +static const char *get_mode (const char *str,unsigned int *modep) {unsigned char c;
@@ -37,7 +39,7 @@ static void decode_tree_entry(struct tree_desc *desc, const char *buf, unsigned/* Initialize the descriptor entry */ desc->entry.path = path; - desc->entry.mode =canon_mode (mode); + desc->entry.mode = decode_tree_raw ? mode :canon_mode (mode); desc->entry.sha1 = (const unsigned char *)(path + len); }
tree-walk.h +3 -0
@@ -25,6 +25,9 @@ static inline int tree_entry_len(const struct name_entry *ne)return (const char *)ne->sha1 - ne->path -1 ; } +/* If set, do not canonicalize modes in tree entries. */ +extern int decode_tree_raw; +void update_tree_entry (struct tree_desc *);void init_tree_desc (struct tree_desc *desc,const void *buf,unsigned long size);
Signature · 1 line
2.1.1.496.g1ba8081
Quoted 4 lines · Jeff King
As far as I can tell, fsck's mode-checking has been totally broken basically forever. Which makes me a little nervous to fix it. :) linux.git does have some bogus modes, but they are 100664, which is specifically ignored here unless "fsck --strict" is in effect.
I'm in favor of checking the mode in fsck, at least when --strict. But I would suggest we be lax (by default) about other likely-to-exist but strictly invalid modes to prevent peoples previously workable repositories from being now broken.
I have, for example, encountered 100775 in the wild, and would argue that like 100644, it should probably not fail unless we are in --strict mode.
Thanks-
-ed
[-cc Kirill, as his address seem out-of-date]
Quoted 6 lines · Edward Thomson
Quoted 4 lines · Jeff King
As far as I can tell, fsck's mode-checking has been totally broken basically forever. Which makes me a little nervous to fix it. :) linux.git does have some bogus modes, but they are 100664, which is specifically ignored here unless "fsck --strict" is in effect.
Quoted 7 lines
I'm in favor of checking the mode in fsck, at least when --strict. But I would suggest we be lax (by default) about other likely-to-exist but strictly invalid modes to prevent peoples previously workable repositories from being now broken.
I have, for example, encountered 100775 in the wild, and would argue that like 100644, it should probably not fail unless we are in --strict mode.
Yeah, I'd agree with that. The big question is: what breakage have we seen in the wild? :)
I think treating 100775 the same as 100664 makes sense (want to do a patch?). Do we know of any others? I guess we can collect them as time goes on and reports come in. That's not the nicest thing for people with such repos, but then again, their repos _are_ broken (and it's only really a showstopper if they are trying to push to somebody with receive.fsckObjects turned on).
-Peff
Hi,
A question about fsck - is there a reason it doesn't have an option to delete bad objects?
Regards, Ben
Quoted 32 lines · Jeff King
[-cc Kirill, as his address seem out-of-date]
Quoted 5 lines · Edward Thomson
Quoted 4 lines · Jeff King
As far as I can tell, fsck's mode-checking has been totally broken basically forever. Which makes me a little nervous to fix it. :) linux.git does have some bogus modes, but they are 100664, which is specifically ignored here unless "fsck --strict" is in effect.
Quoted 7 lines
I'm in favor of checking the mode in fsck, at least when --strict. But I would suggest we be lax (by default) about other likely-to-exist but strictly invalid modes to prevent peoples previously workable repositories from being now broken.
I have, for example, encountered 100775 in the wild, and would argue that like 100644, it should probably not fail unless we are in --strict mode.
Yeah, I'd agree with that. The big question is: what breakage have we seen in the wild? :)
I think treating 100775 the same as 100664 makes sense (want to do a patch?). Do we know of any others? I guess we can collect them as time goes on and reports come in. That's not the nicest thing for people with such repos, but then again, their repos _are_ broken (and it's only really a showstopper if they are trying to push to somebody with receive.fsckObjects turned on).
-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Quoted 2 lines · Ben Aveling
A question about fsck - is there a reason it doesn't have an option to delete bad objects?
If the objects are reachable, then deleting them would create other big problems (i.e., we would be breaking the object graph!).
If they are not, then it is probably safest for them to go away via the normal means (repack/prune via "git gc"). Deleting via fsck would mean replicating the reachability and deletion code found elsewhere.
-Peff
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 7 lines · Ben Aveling
Quoted 5 lines · Jeff King
Quoted 2 lines · Ben Aveling
A question about fsck - is there a reason it doesn't have an option to delete bad objects?
If the objects are reachable, then deleting them would create other big problems (i.e., we would be breaking the object graph!).
Quoted 6 lines
The man page for fsck advises:
"Any corrupt objects you will have to find in backups or other archives (i.e., you can just remove them and do an /rsync/ with some other site in the hopes that somebody else has the object you have corrupted)."
I think there are really two different types of corruption worth considering here.
One is where the data bytes of the object were correct at one point, but now aren't anymore. The sha1 does not check out, and the object is broken. You need to go find another copy of the object somewhere else.
The other is where the object was malformed in the first place, generally due to a software bug (e.g., syntactically bogus email addresses on committer lines, trees that are not sorted properly, etc). There is no point in finding another object, as any you find will be byte-for-byte identical.
For this second type (which is what I thought we were talking about in this thread), deleting the object would be Very Bad.
For the first type, deleting the object _could_ be a path forward. But it's not the usual method for fixing corruption. If you copy a good version of the object into the repository, then a subsequent repack should throw away the broken copy in favor of the good one. Note that you need to copy the objects in manually; you can't use the git protocol to do so. But that is true whether you have the broken object or not (because git does not communicate with the other side about _every_ object you have; it talks about commits, and assumes that you have the rest of the object graph that a commit refers to).
So I don't think deleting really helps in that case. And it may hurt if it later turns out you don't have another copy of the object and need to recover what you can from the corrupted pieces (which has actually happened before).
Quoted 2 lines
I ask because I have a corrupt repository, and every time I run fsck, it reports one corrupt object, then stops.
Corrupt how? Bit-corruption, or a malformed object?
Quoted 6 lines
I could write a script to repeatedly call fsck and then remove the next corrupt object, but it raises the question for me; could it make sense to extend fsck with the option to do to the removes? Or even better, do the removes and then do the necessary [r]sync, assuming the user has another repository that has a good copy of the bad objects, which in this case I do.
If you have a non-corrupted version of the repository, the simplest thing is to just pack it, copy the resulting packfile to the broken repository (again, using "cp" or "rsync" and not git), and then repack there. That won't transfer the minimum amount of data, but it's simple and only requires one round-trip (bearing in mind that git doesn't know what out-of-band method you're using, nor whether we can even initiate a request from the broken repo to the good one, so each round trip generally does need to be done by hand).
-Peff
Quoted 5 lines · Jeff King
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:46:19AM +1100, Ben Aveling wrote:
I have a corrupt repository, and every time I run fsck, it reports one corrupt object, then stops.
Corrupt how? Bit-corruption, or a malformed object?
Bit-corruption, in multiple places.
Quoted 1 line
If you have a non-corrupted version of the repository, the simplest thing is to just pack it, copy the resulting packfile to the broken repository (again, using "cp" or "rsync" and not git), and then repack there.
This seems to have worked. I also had to move away the existing .idx and copy in a new one before it was happy.
I'm not sure that what I've done is so different from simply copying the other version of the repository - there shouldn't have been anything in the corrupt version that wasn't also in the good one. But any rate, it worked.
Thanks, Ben
Quoted 2 lines · Ben Aveling
This seems to have worked. I also had to move away the existing .idx and copy in a new one before it was happy.
Sorry if I wasn't clear; you do need to copy the .idx files along with the packfiles (you can regenerate the .idx files from the packfiles on the destination, but they're not that big; it's probably easier just to copy them).
Quoted 3 lines
I'm not sure that what I've done is so different from simply copying the other version of the repository - there shouldn't have been anything in the corrupt version that wasn't also in the good one. But any rate, it worked.
Right, a valid technique for repairing corruption is to just blow away the original repo entirely and replace it with a good copy. But this is a way of ensuring that no commits are missed, and keeping the original set of refs, config options, and reflogs.
-Peff