From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C89111F453 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 23:49:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2391631AbeIVFkx (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Sep 2018 01:40:53 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-f65.google.com ([209.85.208.65]:39258 "EHLO mail-ed1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725748AbeIVFkx (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Sep 2018 01:40:53 -0400 Received: by mail-ed1-f65.google.com with SMTP id h4-v6so11991552edi.6 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 16:49:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:user-agent:in-reply-to:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2AOIRlKCdakVQbcw3cVsyiaWVWfmiKZEj5Mjn9JgJf8=; b=g6EqhyJ7KqiLpVCKzlDxnF4QD0kpBM55rqFgApvX+eJ5BRj2aGLCCBsAYeGYdPpCa/ INKr/jIU+zOMQVn+xsf1XymcOKVBp66nBK+s6s4MwdgV2DrtoHERPGL8LeriJqZVK1Q5 H4AN6xN1OpRZtFy7W2kctXoyeGsiM6wlhUIJM1Zkq4DCp1X1C2KUWO4/fGkDfNiNz2Hp t3ECS3imBqcVSNtICoESPa4k0BXT+9EaEQDJSeiHjcfUHyPx3R8tjHywJGUpVFhJFORU E7LHk3KWeDwhxxqYjyrpabjJHr1SBHX3my0xp8tSvDXtmuLPB68MRwDHbEhGcWGkkau8 OOGg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:user-agent :in-reply-to:date:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2AOIRlKCdakVQbcw3cVsyiaWVWfmiKZEj5Mjn9JgJf8=; b=r9PYXK3Ky7SF8mDQDJPgVP4MOXH/CuVDWESGTtr5myLlTB5afjMjlTldT3Bl1tk1P0 p1x7D0FQiBW1HwHuhHl4qvT5gLSAwZHzkVojsQCVKt4AdjQPRjlIYYchMEq0QthaLabF bxEdKpS1mm0416fLP5M2447HS/PsK3tSdQvh6qncqTQHYIOdzdj0J+cmQuwIouzhmqPg wd8lzyVpWhYxf4BHR2okmqM3swnAi3LSG+qHYzPqtLLz8pIgtEHk1yykmB8+3lLmIFqx dXUyo/xsmFyRxNN0lhwyAlF6b2EIKi/E6Za7NvI4GWROivIukDAp1yAIsSuQ27MDH3P6 bjPg== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoiWVDEXi4hxq9PWwBf/Xs04c3gxLMXsV8RQ+XPXFnM72JjDYHVr YMyhwjC7u74AQ8lPzZuTHlM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV61YCvk6v+dKxvnhe96axv32V2CE7zX4RHlnZZUjf6GmUdCSHekNOXcJxUa7X85Ss1XgJvqg1A== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:c549:: with SMTP id s9-v6mr64101edr.73.1537573781137; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 16:49:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from evledraar (157-157-127-103.dsl.dynamic.simnet.is. [157.157.127.103]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g4-v6sm2695564eda.86.2018.09.21.16.49.40 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 21 Sep 2018 16:49:40 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason To: Jeff King Cc: Junio C Hamano , Derrick Stolee , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Segfault in master due to 4fbcca4eff References: <87pnx6kjn8.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <62a46e49-e539-cbb8-4aaf-6f9b5ae6be57@gmail.com> <87o9cqkj6p.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <5e7e6519-21c1-daff-65a5-7d2ca5e1dbd4@gmail.com> <87lg7ujuc2.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <20180921234543.GA3412@sigill.intra.peff.net> User-agent: Debian GNU/Linux testing (buster); Emacs 25.2.2; mu4e 1.1.0 In-reply-to: <20180921234543.GA3412@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 01:49:38 +0200 Message-ID: <87k1nejtrh.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 21 2018, Jeff King wrote: > On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 01:37:17AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> > Thanks, both of you ;-). I was aware of the issue and proposed fix >> > but forgot about it when merging things down to 'master'. Sorry >> > about that. >> >> Just a follow-up question, in your merge commit you just pushed to >> "next" you say: >> >> Recent update broke the reachability algorithm when tags pointing >> at objects that are not commit were involved, which has been fixed. >> >> And in Derrick's commit message it says: >> >> [...]but incorrectly assumed that all objects provided were commits[...] >> >> I just wanted to double check (without having the time to dig myself at >> this point) whether this bug was understood & tested for, or whether the >> case I had was just /also/ fixed for unexpected reasons. >> >> I.e. in my upthread test case I have two annotated tags pointing at >> commits, whereas the merge to "next" says "when tags pointing at objects >> that are not commit were involved", which I I assume means say annotated >> tags pointing at blobs..., but that's not what I had. >> >> Wasn't this just a bug fix that had nothing to do with tags not pointing >> to commits, but just ones where we had the simple case of tags pointing >> to commits, but they just weren't peeled? >> >> I'm hoping for a "Junio skimmed the fix and wrote a merge message that >> wasn't quite accurate" here, but maybe that's not the case and something >> might be missing (e.g. missing test code). > > I think it's a combination of the merge message being slightly > inaccurate, and you slightly misreading it. :) > > I think by "tags pointing", Junio meant "tag refs". Which of course, > often point at tag objects, but can also point at trees, etc. > > But the problem is not limited to tag refs. I think it's a problem with > any "want" that is a non-commit. So really any ref pointing to a > non-commit is a problem. But of course tags are the likely way for that > to happen, since refs/heads is generally limited to commits. > > So in short, yeah, the bug was triggered by fetching any annotated tag. Thanks for clearing that up.