git-applymbox broken?

git-applymbox broken?

[Linus Torvalds]

It looks like something has broken git-applymbox lately.

The "From: authorname" lines are no longer removed from the message, and 
are duplicated in the commit log. This has resulted in several recent 
kernel commits looking like this:

	commit c0bbbc73d58f1b774cd987b5687a478a027f137c
	Author: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
	Date:   Sun Jun 11 15:22:26 2006 -0700
	
	    [PATCH] typo in vmscan.c
	    
	    From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
	    
	    Looks like a comma was left from the conversion from a struct to an
	    assignment.
	    
	    Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
	    Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
	    Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

where that "From:" in the body is totally wrong. I just didn't notice, 
until now. Arrr!

I _suspect_ that this is the work by Eric Biederman, ie part of the 
patches that do "Allow in body headers beyond the in body header 
prefix." and "Refactor commit messge handling."

Eric? Can you please fix this up? Lines from the body of the email that 
have been used to set authorship should _not_ also show up in the commit 
message.

		Linus

Re: git-applymbox broken?

[Eric W. Biederman]

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:

> It looks like something has broken git-applymbox lately.
>
> The "From: authorname" lines are no longer removed from the message, and 
> are duplicated in the commit log. This has resulted in several recent 
> kernel commits looking like this:

Agreed.  That isn't terribly desirable.
Do you have the original email message some place?

There is an odd case where if someone put the From: header
in the middle of the text that we now notice and process and I
didn't feel right about removing a line from the middle of the
text.

I was fixing a nasty corner case that happens if there aren't any
mail headers at all passed to git-mailinfo.  Where we could drop
lines without processing them at all.

This doesn't look like the From: header was in the middle of the
message until it was imported into git so it is probably a small
logic error that is easily corrected.  But I need to see what
we are parsing so I can understand what is happening.


> 	commit c0bbbc73d58f1b774cd987b5687a478a027f137c
> 	Author: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
> 	Date:   Sun Jun 11 15:22:26 2006 -0700
> 	
> 	    [PATCH] typo in vmscan.c
> 	    
> 	    From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
> 	    
> 	    Looks like a comma was left from the conversion from a struct to an
> 	    assignment.
> 	    
> 	    Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
> 	    Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
> 	    Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
>
> where that "From:" in the body is totally wrong. I just didn't notice, 
> until now. Arrr!
>
> I _suspect_ that this is the work by Eric Biederman, ie part of the 
> patches that do "Allow in body headers beyond the in body header 
> prefix." and "Refactor commit messge handling."
>
> Eric? Can you please fix this up? Lines from the body of the email that 
> have been used to set authorship should _not_ also show up in the commit 
> message.

Even if the header lines are in the middle of the body?

Eric

Re: git-applymbox broken?

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
> This doesn't look like the From: header was in the middle of the
> message until it was imported into git so it is probably a small
> logic error that is easily corrected.  But I need to see what
> we are parsing so I can understand what is happening.

No, it's at the top of the body, although there might have been an empty 
line or two (ie whitespace only) before it.

> Even if the header lines are in the middle of the body?

What do you mean by "middle"?

No, it should only look at From: and Subject: lines if they are at the 
very top, with no other non-whitespace lines above them. But when it looks 
at them and uses the data from them, it should then remove them from the 
body - they are "conceptually" just extended header lines that just 
happened to technically (from an rfc822 standpoint) be in the body of the 
email.

		Linus

Re: git-applymbox broken?

[Eric W. Biederman]

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:

> On Sun, 11 Jun 2006, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> 
>> This doesn't look like the From: header was in the middle of the
>> message until it was imported into git so it is probably a small
>> logic error that is easily corrected.  But I need to see what
>> we are parsing so I can understand what is happening.
>
> No, it's at the top of the body, although there might have been an empty 
> line or two (ie whitespace only) before it.

Ok.  I'm not certain why we would not be ignoring blank lines that
we used to skip.  The untested patch below should ensure we always
skip those lines.


>> Even if the header lines are in the middle of the body?
>
> What do you mean by "middle"?
>
> No, it should only look at From: and Subject: lines if they are at the 
> very top, with no other non-whitespace lines above them. But when it looks 
> at them and uses the data from them, it should then remove them from the 
> body - they are "conceptually" just extended header lines that just 
> happened to technically (from an rfc822 standpoint) be in the body of the 
> email.

This is a separate conversation and once the problem of not ignoring leading
blank lines is fixed I will be happy to address it.

Eric

diff --git a/mailinfo.c b/mailinfo.c
index 5b6c215..72c5454 100644
--- a/mailinfo.c
+++ b/mailinfo.c
@@ -279,6 +279,14 @@ static void handle_inbody_header(int *se
                        return;
                }
        }
+       /* Ignore leading blank lines */
+       if (!(*seen & SEEN_PREFIX)) {
+               char *ch;
+               for (ch = line; isspace(*ch); ch++)
+                       ;
+               if (*ch == '\0')
+                       return;
+       }
        *seen |= SEEN_PREFIX;
 }

[PATCH] Ignore blank lines among this inbody headers.

[Eric W. Biederman]

This is a fix for a regression introduced in:
8b4525fb3c6d79bd3a64b8f441237a4095db4e22.

When I refactored the inbody header parsing into a state machine I failed
to see the logic that skipped multiple leading spaces if they are present.
I think I assumed that logic was just there to skip the initial blank
line between the mail headers and the body.

This restores that behaviour and since we ignore all leading blank lines
in commit messages now this code removes the special case for the blank
line between the mail headers and the body.
---
 mailinfo.c |   24 ++++++++++++++++--------
 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mailinfo.c b/mailinfo.c
index 5b6c215..3696d61 100644
--- a/mailinfo.c
+++ b/mailinfo.c
@@ -229,6 +229,14 @@ static int is_multipart_boundary(const c
 	return (!memcmp(line, multipart_boundary, multipart_boundary_len));
 }
 
+static int is_blank(char *line)
+{
+	char *ch;
+	for (ch = line; isspace(*ch); ch++)
+		;
+	return *ch == '\0';
+}
+
 static int eatspace(char *line)
 {
 	int len = strlen(line);
@@ -243,7 +251,7 @@ #define SEEN_SUBJECT 04
 #define SEEN_BOGUS_UNIX_FROM 010
 #define SEEN_PREFIX  020
 
-/* First lines of body can have From:, Date:, and Subject: */
+/* First lines of body can have From:, Date:, and Subject: or be blank */
 static void handle_inbody_header(int *seen, char *line)
 {
 	if (!memcmp(">From", line, 5) && isspace(line[5])) {
@@ -279,6 +287,10 @@ static void handle_inbody_header(int *se
 			return;
 		}
 	}
+	if (isspace(line[0])) {
+		if (!(*seen & SEEN_PREFIX) && is_blank(line))
+			return;
+	}
 	*seen |= SEEN_PREFIX;
 }
 
@@ -420,9 +432,7 @@ static int read_one_header_line(char *li
 		if (fgets(line + ofs, sz - ofs, in) == NULL)
 			break;
 		len = eatspace(line + ofs);
-		if (len == 0)
-			break;
-		if (!is_rfc2822_header(line)) {
+		if ((len == 0) || !is_rfc2822_header(line)) {
 			/* Re-add the newline */
 			line[ofs + len] = '\n';
 			line[ofs + len + 1] = '\0';
@@ -762,10 +772,8 @@ static void handle_body(void)
 {
 	int seen = 0;
 
-	if (line[0] || fgets(line, sizeof(line), stdin) != NULL) {
-		handle_commit_msg(&seen);
-		handle_patch();
-	}
+	handle_commit_msg(&seen);
+	handle_patch();
 	fclose(patchfile);
 	if (!patch_lines) {
 		fprintf(stderr, "No patch found\n");
-- 
1.4.0.rc2.g5e3a6

[PATCH] Ignore blank lines among this inbody headers

[Eric W. Biederman]

This is a fix for a regression introduced in:
8b4525fb3c6d79bd3a64b8f441237a4095db4e22.

When I refactored the inbody header parsing into a state machine I failed
to see the logic that skipped multiple leading spaces if they are present.
I think I assumed that logic was just there to skip the initial blank
line between the mail headers and the body.

This restores that behaviour and since we ignore all leading blank lines
in commit messages now this code removes the special case for the blank
line between the mail headers and the body.

Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
---

This is a resend to add my missing Signed-off-by line.
---
 mailinfo.c |   24 ++++++++++++++++--------
 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mailinfo.c b/mailinfo.c
index 5b6c215..3696d61 100644
--- a/mailinfo.c
+++ b/mailinfo.c
@@ -229,6 +229,14 @@ static int is_multipart_boundary(const c
 	return (!memcmp(line, multipart_boundary, multipart_boundary_len));
 }
 
+static int is_blank(char *line)
+{
+	char *ch;
+	for (ch = line; isspace(*ch); ch++)
+		;
+	return *ch == '\0';
+}
+
 static int eatspace(char *line)
 {
 	int len = strlen(line);
@@ -243,7 +251,7 @@ #define SEEN_SUBJECT 04
 #define SEEN_BOGUS_UNIX_FROM 010
 #define SEEN_PREFIX  020
 
-/* First lines of body can have From:, Date:, and Subject: */
+/* First lines of body can have From:, Date:, and Subject: or be blank */
 static void handle_inbody_header(int *seen, char *line)
 {
 	if (!memcmp(">From", line, 5) && isspace(line[5])) {
@@ -279,6 +287,10 @@ static void handle_inbody_header(int *se
 			return;
 		}
 	}
+	if (isspace(line[0])) {
+		if (!(*seen & SEEN_PREFIX) && is_blank(line))
+			return;
+	}
 	*seen |= SEEN_PREFIX;
 }
 
@@ -420,9 +432,7 @@ static int read_one_header_line(char *li
 		if (fgets(line + ofs, sz - ofs, in) == NULL)
 			break;
 		len = eatspace(line + ofs);
-		if (len == 0)
-			break;
-		if (!is_rfc2822_header(line)) {
+		if ((len == 0) || !is_rfc2822_header(line)) {
 			/* Re-add the newline */
 			line[ofs + len] = '\n';
 			line[ofs + len + 1] = '\0';
@@ -762,10 +772,8 @@ static void handle_body(void)
 {
 	int seen = 0;
 
-	if (line[0] || fgets(line, sizeof(line), stdin) != NULL) {
-		handle_commit_msg(&seen);
-		handle_patch();
-	}
+	handle_commit_msg(&seen);
+	handle_patch();
 	fclose(patchfile);
 	if (!patch_lines) {
 		fprintf(stderr, "No patch found\n");
-- 
1.4.0.g25f48-dirty

Re: git-applymbox broken?

[Eric W. Biederman]

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:

> What do you mean by "middle"?
>
> No, it should only look at From: and Subject: lines if they are at the 
> very top, with no other non-whitespace lines above them. But when it looks 
> at them and uses the data from them, it should then remove them from the 
> body - they are "conceptually" just extended header lines that just 
> happened to technically (from an rfc822 standpoint) be in the body of the 
> email.

Below is an example of the kind of patch that inspired me to relax the
rules on parsing in body headers (this comes from Andi Kleen quilt tree).

The first line in this instance is obviously a subject line but there
is not really good way to detect that.  Then we get a From: line.

Now I doubt any patches ever hit the mail in this format and it probably
isn't worth it to track down every variation of patch headers in existence.
But if we don't find a From: header in the body prefix it seems to make
sense to keep looking for headers in the body, and to use the information
if we find it.

---
Kdump i386 nmi event notification fix

From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@in.ibm.com>

After a crash we should wait for NMI IPI event and not for external NMI or
NMI watchdog tick.

Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@in.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Cc: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
---

 arch/i386/kernel/crash.c |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Index: linux/arch/i386/kernel/crash.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/arch/i386/kernel/crash.c
+++ linux/arch/i386/kernel/crash.c
@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ static int crash_nmi_callback(struct not
 	struct pt_regs fixed_regs;
 	int cpu;
 
-	if (val != DIE_NMI)
+	if (val != DIE_NMI_IPI)
 		return NOTIFY_OK;
 
 	regs = ((struct die_args *)data)->regs;
@@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ static int crash_nmi_callback(struct not
 	 * an NMI if system was initially booted with nmi_watchdog parameter.
 	 */
 	if (cpu == crashing_cpu)
-		return 1;
+		return NOTIFY_STOP;
 	local_irq_disable();
 
 	if (!user_mode_vm(regs)) {

Re: git-applymbox broken?

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
> Below is an example of the kind of patch that inspired me to relax the
> rules on parsing in body headers (this comes from Andi Kleen quilt tree).

And this is wrong.

We should _not_ accept crappy patches, and then start guessing at what the 
person meant.

>From the very beginning of git, I tried to make it extremely clear that 
there is never any guessing going on. We don't use "heuristics" except as 
a pure optimization: ie a heuristic can have a _performance_ impact, but 
it must never EVER have semantic impact.

SCM's are not about guessing. They are about saving the _exact_ state that 
the user asked for. No "let's try to be nice", no gray areas.

If the new git-applymbox just takes random lines from the body of the 
email, and decides that they may be authorship information, then that is a 
BUG. The "From: " line in the middle of an email may well be about 
somebody having _discovered_ the bug, and we're quoting him as part of the 
explanation. It does NOT mean that it's about authorship.

So we should ONLY check for "From:" (and perhaps "Subject:" and "Date:") 
at the very top of the email body. NOWHERE ELSE.

The fact that somebody has a crappy quilt tree, and the fact that quilt is 
very much a "anything goes" kind of laissez faire system does not mean, 
and should NEVER mean that git becomes the same kind of mess of "let's do 
a best effort and try to guess what somebody means" kind of thing.

I check and edit my emails before I apply them, and I try to teach the 
people who send them manners and what the rules are. THAT is the way to 
handle this, not by having the tool itself become unreliable and random

		Linus

[PATCH] Don't parse any headers in the real body of an email message.

[Eric W. Biederman]

It was pointed out that the current behaviour might mispart a patch comment
so remove this behaviour for now.

Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
---
 mailinfo.c |    2 ++
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mailinfo.c b/mailinfo.c
index 3696d61..325c3b2 100644
--- a/mailinfo.c
+++ b/mailinfo.c
@@ -254,6 +254,8 @@ #define SEEN_PREFIX  020
 /* First lines of body can have From:, Date:, and Subject: or be blank */
 static void handle_inbody_header(int *seen, char *line)
 {
+	if (*seen & SEEN_PREFIX)
+		return;
 	if (!memcmp(">From", line, 5) && isspace(line[5])) {
 		if (!(*seen & SEEN_BOGUS_UNIX_FROM)) {
 			*seen |= SEEN_BOGUS_UNIX_FROM;
-- 
1.4.0.g25f48-dirty

Re: git-applymbox broken?

[Eric W. Biederman]

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:

> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> 
>> Below is an example of the kind of patch that inspired me to relax the
>> rules on parsing in body headers (this comes from Andi Kleen quilt tree).
>
> And this is wrong.
>
> We should _not_ accept crappy patches, and then start guessing at what the 
> person meant.
>
>>From the very beginning of git, I tried to make it extremely clear that 
> there is never any guessing going on. We don't use "heuristics" except as 
> a pure optimization: ie a heuristic can have a _performance_ impact, but 
> it must never EVER have semantic impact.
>
> SCM's are not about guessing. They are about saving the _exact_ state that 
> the user asked for. No "let's try to be nice", no gray areas.
>
> If the new git-applymbox just takes random lines from the body of the 
> email, and decides that they may be authorship information, then that is a 
> BUG. The "From: " line in the middle of an email may well be about 
> somebody having _discovered_ the bug, and we're quoting him as part of the 
> explanation. It does NOT mean that it's about authorship.
>
> So we should ONLY check for "From:" (and perhaps "Subject:" and "Date:") 
> at the very top of the email body. NOWHERE ELSE.
>
> The fact that somebody has a crappy quilt tree, and the fact that quilt is 
> very much a "anything goes" kind of laissez faire system does not mean, 
> and should NEVER mean that git becomes the same kind of mess of "let's do 
> a best effort and try to guess what somebody means" kind of thing.

Ok. A reasonable position.  It would have been nice if you had squawked 
when I made that change: 2dec02b1ecafc47d4031d0a68a94c775a6a9ff9e

I thought I was explicit when I did it, oh well.

As for quilt being imperfect that among other things is why I
am slowly trying to make the tools play together better.  So people
can use the best tool for the job, which if the integration is tight
enough becomes a single tool.

> I check and edit my emails before I apply them, and I try to teach the 
> people who send them manners and what the rules are. THAT is the way to 
> handle this, not by having the tool itself become unreliable and random

What are the rules?

This looks like something that needs to be Documented by
more than just the source of git-mailinfo.

The need to skip extra blank lines was a surprise to me.
In looking for documentation the best I could quickly
find was SubmittingPatches and it only Documents the From: and ---
lines.

Eric

Re: git-applymbox broken?

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

> Index: linux/arch/i386/kernel/crash.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/arch/i386/kernel/crash.c
> +++ linux/arch/i386/kernel/crash.c

Tsk, tsk. Not using git, are we?

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: git-applymbox broken?

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:43:06 +0200 (CEST) Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
> > Index: linux/arch/i386/kernel/crash.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux.orig/arch/i386/kernel/crash.c
> > +++ linux/arch/i386/kernel/crash.c
> 
> Tsk, tsk. Not using git, are we?

what's your point?
Eric clearly identified where the patch came from.

---
~Randy

Re: git-applymbox broken?

[Ryan Anderson]

On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 05:33:59PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:
> 
> > It looks like something has broken git-applymbox lately.
> >
> > The "From: authorname" lines are no longer removed from the message, and 
> > are duplicated in the commit log. This has resulted in several recent 
> > kernel commits looking like this:
> 
> Agreed.  That isn't terribly desirable.
> Do you have the original email message some place?
> 
> There is an odd case where if someone put the From: header
> in the middle of the text that we now notice and process and I
> didn't feel right about removing a line from the middle of the
> text.
> 
> I was fixing a nasty corner case that happens if there aren't any
> mail headers at all passed to git-mailinfo.  Where we could drop
> lines without processing them at all.
> 
> This doesn't look like the From: header was in the middle of the
> message until it was imported into git so it is probably a small
> logic error that is easily corrected.  But I need to see what
> we are parsing so I can understand what is happening.

I hate to say this, because I'm bad about it, too, but we should
probably have a few tests for applymbox, to cover the various scenarios
discussed in this thread.

-- 

Ryan Anderson
  sometimes Pug Majere