From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] fsck: do not canonicalize modes in trees we are checking Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:30:09 -0400 Message-ID: <20140923163008.GA21591@peff.net> References: <20140923154751.GA19319@peff.net> <20140923162343.GA20379@debian> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Edward Thomson X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Sep 23 18:31:35 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 1XWSyo-0008Cm-Hd for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:30:18 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755856AbaIWQaM (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:30:12 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:51001 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755056AbaIWQaL (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:30:11 -0400 Received: (qmail 27683 invoked by uid 102); 23 Sep 2014 16:30:11 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:30:11 -0500 Received: (qmail 29581 invoked by uid 107); 23 Sep 2014 16:30:36 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:30:36 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:30:09 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140923162343.GA20379@debian> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: [-cc Kirill, as his address seem out-of-date] On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 04:23:43PM +0000, Edward Thomson wrote: 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