From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from secure.elehost.com (secure.elehost.com [185.209.179.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B52F480058 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 18:03:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.209.179.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708970617; cv=none; b=EVjHx7wjK3oZFwpckIUYvFRPq76uyVMf7cpeUl/D2obVhxoR4i/WVM7pMZFJIS6DnfrX9RA6cTn55Q8I9aaemucfrg1JGmzVEzAfnyvkGJJkUsEQQvBX/rWD9ViQXHGGu75XInwQeKtwY1nWHFeIfU1fReIj9BZPZ/ISCs/o/GQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708970617; c=relaxed/simple; bh=6E6ErtNOb7rmRs1rRBmbMqA9LnMZK62Nro02PePofpA=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=GM8Sr8VstwcpRvTKwa9JrRmtzUeUW58JCNZh9KZguP+F9gpMVqDCtG+sSYnTd5XZhgppIGS2EHZlmkdmRgTu1fr8k769dliOLimPSIo5ypsBGRuY+Aovy3XIaYG2blUdmmNALdKGxd/+U0XHH3WLXh/QuaTejTt9k20sgyBSgbY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=nexbridge.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nexbridge.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.209.179.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=nexbridge.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nexbridge.com X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at secure.elehost.com Received: from Mazikeen (cpebc4dfb928313-cmbc4dfb928310.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.228.251.108] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by secure.elehost.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-22ubuntu3) with ESMTPSA id 41QI3QJ42182311 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 26 Feb 2024 18:03:27 GMT Reply-To: From: To: , "=?utf-8?Q?'Torsten_B=C3=B6gershausen'?=" Cc: , "'Patrick Steinhardt'" References: <01bd01da681a$b8d70a70$2a851f50$@nexbridge.com> <01be01da681e$0c349090$249db1b0$@nexbridge.com> <20240225191954.GA28646@tb-raspi4> <01ca01da682a$5f6a7b60$1e3f7220$@nexbridge.com> <5e807c1c-20a0-407b-9fc2-acd38521ba45@gmail.com> <76962a0c-adfd-47a5-a017-a117ba14ae09@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <76962a0c-adfd-47a5-a017-a117ba14ae09@gmail.com> Subject: RE: [BUG] 2.44.0 t7704.9 Fails on NonStop ia64 Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 13:03:21 -0500 Organization: Nexbridge Inc. Message-ID: <023c01da68de$196615c0$4c324140$@nexbridge.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Content-Language: en-ca Thread-Index: AQH6KeHXK3ktIx6cNmAt1sL267+NoQLej1jbAXwNbRICuPECnQG1wVidAfcdzTGwh2SeQA== >From: Phillip Wood On Monday, February 26, 2024 11:00 AM, Phillip Wood wrote: >To: rsbecker@nexbridge.com; 'Torsten B=C3=B6gershausen' >Cc: git@vger.kernel.org; Patrick Steinhardt >Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.44.0 t7704.9 Fails on NonStop ia64 > >On 26/02/2024 15:32, Phillip Wood wrote: >> Hi Randal >> >> [cc'ing Patrick for the reftable writer] >> >> On 25/02/2024 20:36, rsbecker@nexbridge.com wrote: >>> On Sunday, February 25, 2024 2:20 PM, Torsten B=C3=B6gershausen = wrote: >>>> On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 02:08:35PM -0500, rsbecker@nexbridge.com = wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, February 25, 2024 1:45 PM, I wrote: >>>>>> To: git@vger.kernel.org >>>> But I think that this should be used: >>>> write_in_full() >>> >>> My mailer autocorrected, yes, xwrite. write_in_full() would be safe, >>> although a bit redundant since xwrite() does similar things and is >>> used by write_in_full(). >> >> Note that unlike write_in_full(), xwrite() does not guarantee to = write >> the whole buffer passed to it. In general unless a caller is writing = a >> single byte or writing less than PIPE_BUF bytes to a pipe it should >> use write_in_full(). >> >>> The question is which call is bad? The cruft stuff is relatively new >>> and I don't know the code. > >I should have been clearer that I do not think any of these calls are = the likely >problem for the cruft pack code. I do think the reftable writers are = worth looking at >though for git in general. > >For the cruft pack problem you might want to look for suspect xwrite() = calls where >the caller does not handle a short write correctly for example under = builtin/ we have > >builtin/index-pack.c: err =3D xwrite(1, input_buffer = + >input_offset, input_len); >builtin/receive-pack.c: xwrite(2, msg, sz); >builtin/repack.c: xwrite(cmd->in, oid_to_hex(oid), >the_hash_algo->hexsz); >builtin/repack.c: xwrite(cmd->in, "\n", 1); >builtin/unpack-objects.c: int ret =3D xwrite(1, buffer + >offset, len); > >Best Wishes > >Phillip > >>>>> reftable/writer.c: int n =3D w->write(w->write_arg, >>>>> zeroed, >>>>> w->pending_padding); >>>>> reftable/writer.c: n =3D w->write(w->write_arg, data, len); >> >> Neither of these appear to check for short writes and >> reftable_fd_write() is a thin wrapper around write(). Maybe >> reftable_fd_write() should be using write_in_full()? >> >>>>> run-command.c: len =3D write(io->fd, = io->u.out.buf, >> >> This call to write() looks correct as it is in the io pump loop. >> >>>>> t/helper/test-path-utils.c: if (write(1, >>>>> buffer, >>> count) >>>>> < 0) >>> t/helper/test-windows-named-pipe.c: write(1, >>>>> buf, nbr); >>>>> t/helper/test-windows-named-pipe.c: write(1, buf, = nbr); >> >> In principle these all look like they are prone to short writes. >> >>>>> trace2/tr2_dst.c: bytes =3D write(fd, buf_line->buf, >>>>> buf_line->len); >> >> This caller explicitly says it prefers short writes over retrying I'm getting caught a bit behind the curve. After rebuilding from master, = I'm now getting: + test 1708960150 -lt 1708970156 + test_line_count =3D 3 cruft.before + test_line_count =3D 2 cruft.after test_line_count: line count for cruft.after !=3D 2 This is looking more like a different problem than xwrite().