From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Aveling Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] fsck: do not canonicalize modes in trees we are checking Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 09:37:27 +1100 Message-ID: <543B02A7.9040807@optusnet.com.au> References: <20140923154751.GA19319@peff.net> <20140923162343.GA20379@debian> <20140923163008.GA21591@peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King , Edward Thomson X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Oct 13 01:05:44 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XdSCt-0006D3-UI for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 01:05:44 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752575AbaJLXFk (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:05:40 -0400 Received: from mail106.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.42]:34757 "EHLO mail106.syd.optusnet.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751506AbaJLXFj (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:05:39 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 1684 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:05:39 EDT Received: from [192.168.1.100] (pa49-195-44-98.pa.nsw.optusnet.com.au [49.195.44.98]) (Authenticated sender: bena.001@optusnet.com.au) by mail106.syd.optusnet.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1DB8F3C2967; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 09:37:31 +1100 (EST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 In-Reply-To: <20140923163008.GA21591@peff.net> X-Optus-CM-Score: 0 X-Optus-CM-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=BdjhjNd2 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=8DvjPrTg2KIHJ2weNsdFBQ==:117 a=8DvjPrTg2KIHJ2weNsdFBQ==:17 a=PO7r1zJSAAAA:8 a=tcnv99F1KMcA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=VwQbUJbxAAAA:8 a=JqXAnbiMQ7oRlYX--_sA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=x8gzFH9gYPwA:10 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org 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 [-cc Kirill, as his address seem out-of-date] 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 >