Re: git pull aborts in 50% of cases

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> 
>>>0.99.9k is clearly bad.
>>
>>Huh? It could be slower, and it could therefore hit the maximum client 
>>count faster, but it should not be bad.
>>
>>All changes to pull were done in a manner so as to be backward compatible. 
>>In both ways.
> 
> 
> I do not think the fetch-pack common computation changes is
> involved in this problem at all.
> 
> What is suspect is the repository validity check code,
> specifically (quoting from diff between 0.99.9j and 0.99.9k
> daemon.c::path_ok() function):
> 
> +               /* The validation is done on the paths after enter_repo
> +                * canonicalization, so whitelist should be written in
> +                * terms of real pathnames (i.e. after ~user is expanded
> +                * and symlinks resolved).
> +                */
> 
> I suspect (but have not heard back from HPA to confirm) that
> kernel.org runs git-daemon with /pub/scm as the whitelist, but
> there is a symbolic link (or bind mount?) involved, and the real
> path checked based on getcwd() return value is somewhere else.

/pub is a symbolic link.  We shouldn't rely on getcwd() for this kind of 
stuff; it's bad for a whole bunch of reasons.

	-hpa