pull: avoid crash of invalid merge head

[jirikuncar]

No description provided.

[gitgitgadget]

Welcome to GitGitGadget

Hi @jirikuncar, and welcome to GitGitGadget, the GitHub App to send patch series to the Git mailing list from GitHub Pull Requests.

Please make sure that either:

• Your Pull Request has a good description, if it consists of multiple commits, as it will be used as cover letter.
• Your Pull Request description is empty, if it consists of a single commit, as the commit message should be descriptive enough by itself.

You can CC potential reviewers by adding a footer to the PR description with the following syntax:

CC: Revi Ewer <revi.ewer@example.com>, Ill Takalook <ill.takalook@example.net>

NOTE: DO NOT copy/paste your CC list from a previous GGG PR's description,
because it will result in a malformed CC list on the mailing list. See
example.

Also, it is a good idea to review the commit messages one last time, as the Git project expects them in a quite specific form:

• the lines should not exceed 76 columns,
• the first line should be like a header and typically start with a prefix like "tests:" or "revisions:" to state which subsystem the change is about, and
• the commit messages' body should be describing the "why?" of the change.
• Finally, the commit messages should end in a Signed-off-by: line matching the commits' author.

It is in general a good idea to await the automated test ("Checks") in this Pull Request before contributing the patches, e.g. to avoid trivial issues such as unportable code.

Contributing the patches

Before you can contribute the patches, your GitHub username needs to be added to the list of permitted users. Any already-permitted user can do that, by adding a comment to your PR of the form /allow. A good way to find other contributors is to locate recent pull requests where someone has been /allowed:

• Search: is:pr is:open "/allow"

Both the person who commented /allow and the PR author are able to /allow you.

An alternative is the channel #git-devel on the Libera Chat IRC network:

<newcontributor> I've just created my first PR, could someone please /allow me? https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/12345
<veteran> newcontributor: it is done
<newcontributor> thanks!

Once on the list of permitted usernames, you can contribute the patches to the Git mailing list by adding a PR comment /submit.

If you want to see what email(s) would be sent for a /submit request, add a PR comment /preview to have the email(s) sent to you. You must have a public GitHub email address for this. Note that any reviewers CC'd via the list in the PR description will not actually be sent emails.

After you submit, GitGitGadget will respond with another comment that contains the link to the cover letter mail in the Git mailing list archive. Please make sure to monitor the discussion in that thread and to address comments and suggestions (while the comments and suggestions will be mirrored into the PR by GitGitGadget, you will still want to reply via mail).

If you do not want to subscribe to the Git mailing list just to be able to respond to a mail, you can download the mbox from the Git mailing list archive (click the (raw) link), then import it into your mail program. If you use GMail, you can do this via:

curl -g --user "<EMailAddress>:<Password>" \
    --url "imaps://imap.gmail.com/INBOX" -T /path/to/raw.txt

To iterate on your change, i.e. send a revised patch or patch series, you will first want to (force-)push to the same branch. You probably also want to modify your Pull Request description (or title). It is a good idea to summarize the revision by adding something like this to the cover letter (read: by editing the first comment on the PR, i.e. the PR description):

Changes since v1:
- Fixed a typo in the commit message (found by ...)
- Added a code comment to ... as suggested by ...
...

To send a new iteration, just add another PR comment with the contents: /submit.

Need help?

New contributors who want advice are encouraged to join git-mentoring@googlegroups.com, where volunteers who regularly contribute to Git are willing to answer newbie questions, give advice, or otherwise provide mentoring to interested contributors. You must join in order to post or view messages, but anyone can join.

You may also be able to find help in real time in the developer IRC channel, #git-devel on Libera Chat. Remember that IRC does not support offline messaging, so if you send someone a private message and log out, they cannot respond to you. The scrollback of #git-devel is archived, though.

[Ikke]

/allow

[gitgitgadget]

User jirikuncar is now allowed to use GitGitGadget.

[jirikuncar]

/preview

[gitgitgadget]

Preview email sent as pull.2223.git.1789139103583.gitgitgadget@gmail.com

[jirikuncar]

/submit

[gitgitgadget]

Submitted as pull.2223.git.1789252459520.gitgitgadget@gmail.com

To fetch this version into FETCH_HEAD:

git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/ pr-2223/jirikuncar/jk/pull-null-merge-head-v1

To fetch this version to local tag pr-2223/jirikuncar/jk/pull-null-merge-head-v1:

git fetch --no-tags https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/ tag pr-2223/jirikuncar/jk/pull-null-merge-head-v1

[gitgitgadget]

Junio C Hamano wrote on the Git mailing list (how to reply to this email):

"Jiri Kuncar via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:

> From: Jiri Kuncar <jiri.kuncar@gmail.com>
>
> Adds NULL guards for lookup_commit_reference() to avoid segfaults.
>
> Those invalid references are possibly caused by parallel fetches or
> gc racing on the same repository.
>
> This effectively treats failed lookup as "not up to date" so caller
> falls to a normal merge, which reports the broken object instead of
> crashing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Kuncar <jiri.kuncar@gmail.com>
> ---
>     pull: avoid crash of invalid merge head

The log message sounds a bit unusual from our norm (see
Documentation/SubmittingPatches).

It is of course good to deal with a corrupt state more gracefully
rather than crashing.  From a cursory look, the particular solution
chosen, to drive the caller to perform a merge and have it fail, may
smell a bit like cheating, in that we could diagnose the breakage
better by reporting what was broken at each place, but it probably
is a good choice.

If we really want to improve the situation for 'orig_head', for
example, we would probably want to turn it into a commit object
instance a lot earlier and pass the commit object instance around in
the call chain.  Passing around many struct object_id instances
instead of object instances is an unnatural consequence of how this
program evolved.  It was originally written as a shell script, and
of course passing hexadecimal object names was the only way the
script could drive 'git merge-base' and other programs to see if the
commit recorded as the current 'HEAD' will fast-forward to the
commit that is fetched from the remote to be merged in, for example.
Once we go that route to resolve object names early to object
instances, we will not have multiple lookup_commit_reference() calls
on the same object name (which require us to watch out for failures)
to begin with.

The above is a long-winded way to say that it is a good improvement
that does not do more than it needs to do and we will not have to
spend too much effort to undo when we revamp the internals to do
"the right thing" later.


> diff --git a/t/t5520-pull.sh b/t/t5520-pull.sh
> index 27f38ab3c8..7a3eadddd3 100755
> --- a/t/t5520-pull.sh
> +++ b/t/t5520-pull.sh
> @@ -888,4 +888,30 @@ test_expect_success 'git pull --rebase against local branch' '
>  	test_cmp expect file2
>  '
>  
> +test_expect_success 'pull does not crash when a merge head does not resolve' '
> +	test_when_finished "rm -rf up dn" &&
> +	git init up &&
> +	(
> +		cd up &&
> +		test_commit base &&
> +		git switch -c sideA &&
> +		test_commit a &&
> +		git switch -c sideB base &&
> +		test_commit b
> +	) &&
> +	git clone up dn &&
> +	(
> +		cd dn &&
> +		git -c fetch.unpackLimit=1000 fetch origin \
> +			"+refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*" &&
> +		git commit-graph write --reachable &&
> +		oid=$(git rev-parse refs/remotes/origin/sideA) &&
> +		obj=.git/objects/$(test_oid_to_path "$oid") &&
> +		test -f "$obj" &&
> +		chmod u+w "$obj" &&
> +		>"$obj" &&
> +		test_must_fail git pull --no-rebase origin sideA sideB
> +	)
> +'

The "test -f" there smells more like a debugging aid for this test
than making sure the fixed program works as expected.  I wonder if
it is simpler (and more portable to non-POSIX environments) if we
replace the "corrupt $obj" step with 'rm -f "$obj"'.

Thanks.