From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) (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 686EA4405 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:55:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717959319; cv=none; b=TTssTxUo/SUmd4bjJn9slMOGxYNmbiM3iWylxxOg4KfplhciE7rYqW1Ti5WRJgyq9MaPyCX09QlAod3Ns1vR6A7jMoSbbKlirJwM8p2Yw/fTJroK7ViySb+QQQm07NyuP/l1cZtjdRhAwhY+bWWIm6vq0E6W6j/Qaz3ehNYRKv4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717959319; c=relaxed/simple; bh=WbVyZXCZJMoTzLj02sP5CiaQ/BT1XJ5VzuUGJnWLvrQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=MkxXMJpPxBd1CuNxpC5CbS8Xybu0SWiuv5DOIDZw7Awo7njdLKXKTBzW282L6mCpiWoEMhuqHlCQmzzPp5VVy2JwI2j88Ldg6W66R4VrMRzlZHKuyugu3hGrYvo9qMFdM6zC5rIzM47L9xuSh0YgaMGTgHJWNNHWnvDBGYE+z4I= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=w3pAHs8s; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="w3pAHs8s" Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D55A628543; Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:55:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=WbVyZXCZJMoTzLj02sP5CiaQ/BT1XJ5VzuUGJn WLvrQ=; b=w3pAHs8spVNV+ebD3rI1rc9kigpk+lcbxcqIyFfWW5rpwEkILgT2vd IO7OQEsJjPDzAIUgVJO82SPDDQaEQZCh2HjT7bIXZAQEwqz6ut9ktjpYUEyXGDDa xwYFv5SnRpO32ki2ehgVZxThZJd0YZbq0nd/eLw8jrpsZXrqizJd8= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD90428541; Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:55:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.204.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2119C2853F; Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:55:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Taylor Blau Cc: Jeff King , Kyle Lippincott , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: MSan failures in pack-bitmap In-Reply-To: (Taylor Blau's message of "Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:31:24 -0400") References: <20240608081855.GA2390433@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:55:07 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: CB1C838C-2691-11EF-BF9F-B84BEB2EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Taylor Blau writes: > Unfortunately, the regression happened in 795006fff4, so this is in a > released version of Git. But this is all behind a configuration option, > so affected users can reasonably work around this issue. Can you elaborate a bit about "reasonably work around"? I am imagining that you are saying that the user can say "do not use bitmap, because it may be corrupted due to an earlier regression" in some configuration, so that a corrupt bitmap data is not used to further spread the damage, but how does a user find out that on-disc midx is broken and a workaround needs to be employed in the first place? After working around the issue by avoiding to use the corrupt on-disc data while waiting for a fixed version of Git to come, what does the user need to do to start using the now-corrected feature again? Does the fixed code notice there is an existing breakage caused by the regression and remove the broken file automatically? Thanks.