Re: [RFC/PATCH] fsck: do not canonicalize modes in trees we are checking

[Ben Aveling <bena.001@optusnet.com.au>]

Hi,

A question about fsck - is there a reason it doesn't have an option to 
delete bad objects?

Regards, Ben

On 24/09/2014 02:30, Jeff King wrote:
> [-cc Kirill, as his address seem out-of-date]
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 04:23:43PM +0000, Edward Thomson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:47:51AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>>> 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.
> 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>