From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Robin Jarry <robin@jarry.cc>
Cc: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org,
"Nicolas Dichtel" <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>,
"Jan Smets" <jan.smets@nokia.com>,
"Stephen Morton" <stephen.morton@nokia.com>,
"Jeff King" <peff@peff.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] receive-pack: ignore SIGPIPE while reporting status to client
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2021 13:10:26 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqzgqd11dp.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211106220358.144886-1-robin@jarry.cc> (Robin Jarry's message of "Sat, 6 Nov 2021 23:03:59 +0100")
Robin Jarry <robin@jarry.cc> writes:
> When a remote client exits while the pre-receive hook is running,
> receive-pack is not killed by SIGPIPE because the signal is ignored.
> This is a side effect of commit ec7dbd145bd8 (receive-pack: allow hooks
> to ignore its standard input stream, 2014-09-12).
>
> The pre-receive hook itself is not interrupted and does not receive any
> error since its stdout is a pipe which is read in an async thread and
> output back to the client socket in a side band channel.
>
> After the pre-receive has exited the SIGPIPE default handler is restored
> and if the hook did not report any error, objects are migrated from
> temporary to permanent storage.
All of the above talks about the pre-receive hook, but it is unclear
how that is relevant to this change. The first paragraph says
"... is not killed", and if that was a bad thing (in other words, it
should be killed but is not, and that is a bug worth fixing), and if
this patch changes the behaviour, then that paragraph is worth
saying. Similarly for the other two.
> Before running the post-receive hook, status info is reported back to
> the client. Since the client has died, receive-pack is killed by SIGPIPE
> and post-receive is never executed.
In other words, regardless of what happens (or does not happen) to
the pre-receive hook, which may not even exist, if "git push" dies
before the post-receive hook runs, this paragraph applies, no?
What I am getting at is that this can (and should) be the first
paragraph of the description without losing clarity.
> Ignore SIGPIPE before reporting status to the client to increase the
> chances of post-receive running if pre-receive was successful. This does
> not guarantee 100% consistency but it should resist early disconnection
> by the client.
OK.
> diff --git a/builtin/receive-pack.c b/builtin/receive-pack.c
> index 49b846d96052..5fe7992028d4 100644
> --- a/builtin/receive-pack.c
> +++ b/builtin/receive-pack.c
> @@ -2564,12 +2564,14 @@ int cmd_receive_pack(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> use_keepalive = KEEPALIVE_ALWAYS;
> execute_commands(commands, unpack_status, &si,
> &push_options);
> + sigchain_push(SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN);
> if (pack_lockfile)
> unlink_or_warn(pack_lockfile);
Shouldn't we start ignoring SIGPIPE here, not before we try to
unlink the lockfile?
> if (report_status_v2)
> report_v2(commands, unpack_status);
> else if (report_status)
> report(commands, unpack_status);
> + sigchain_pop(SIGPIPE);
In other words, push/pop pair should surround the part that reports
the status, as the proposed commit log message said.
> run_receive_hook(commands, "post-receive", 1,
> &push_options);
> run_update_post_hook(commands);
Other than these, looks good to me.
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-09 21:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-04 13:35 [RFC PATCH] receive-pack: run post-receive before reporting status Robin Jarry
2021-11-06 5:03 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-11-06 21:32 ` Robin Jarry
2021-11-06 22:03 ` [PATCH v2] receive-pack: ignore SIGPIPE while reporting status to client Robin Jarry
2021-11-09 21:10 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2021-11-09 21:38 ` Robin Jarry
2021-11-09 23:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-11-10 10:35 ` [RFC PATCH] receive-pack: interrupt pre-receive when client disconnects Robin Jarry
2021-12-29 14:21 ` Robin Jarry
2021-11-10 9:29 ` [PATCH v3] receive-pack: ignore SIGPIPE while reporting status to client Robin Jarry
2021-11-18 9:36 ` Robin Jarry
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqzgqd11dp.fsf@gitster.g \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=avarab@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jan.smets@nokia.com \
--cc=nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=robin@jarry.cc \
--cc=stephen.morton@nokia.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).