1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/git/git.git synced 2024-11-17 22:44:49 +01:00
git/t/t5302-pack-index.sh

243 lines
8.5 KiB
Bash
Raw Normal View History

#!/bin/sh
#
# Copyright (c) 2007 Nicolas Pitre
#
test_description='pack index with 64-bit offsets and object CRC'
. ./test-lib.sh
test_expect_success \
'setup' \
'rm -rf .git &&
git init &&
git config pack.threads 1 &&
i=1 &&
while test $i -le 100
do
iii=`printf '%03i' $i`
test-genrandom "bar" 200 > wide_delta_$iii &&
test-genrandom "baz $iii" 50 >> wide_delta_$iii &&
test-genrandom "foo"$i 100 > deep_delta_$iii &&
test-genrandom "foo"`expr $i + 1` 100 >> deep_delta_$iii &&
test-genrandom "foo"`expr $i + 2` 100 >> deep_delta_$iii &&
echo $iii >file_$iii &&
test-genrandom "$iii" 8192 >>file_$iii &&
git update-index --add file_$iii deep_delta_$iii wide_delta_$iii &&
i=`expr $i + 1` || return 1
done &&
{ echo 101 && test-genrandom 100 8192; } >file_101 &&
git update-index --add file_101 &&
tree=`git write-tree` &&
commit=`git commit-tree $tree </dev/null` && {
echo $tree &&
git ls-tree $tree | sed -e "s/.* \\([0-9a-f]*\\) .*/\\1/"
} >obj-list &&
git update-ref HEAD $commit'
test_expect_success \
'pack-objects with index version 1' \
'pack1=$(git pack-objects --index-version=1 test-1 <obj-list) &&
git verify-pack -v "test-1-${pack1}.pack"'
test_expect_success \
'pack-objects with index version 2' \
'pack2=$(git pack-objects --index-version=2 test-2 <obj-list) &&
git verify-pack -v "test-2-${pack2}.pack"'
test_expect_success \
'both packs should be identical' \
'cmp "test-1-${pack1}.pack" "test-2-${pack2}.pack"'
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
test_expect_success \
'index v1 and index v2 should be different' \
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
'! cmp "test-1-${pack1}.idx" "test-2-${pack2}.idx"'
test_expect_success \
'index-pack with index version 1' \
'git index-pack --index-version=1 -o 1.idx "test-1-${pack1}.pack"'
test_expect_success \
'index-pack with index version 2' \
'git index-pack --index-version=2 -o 2.idx "test-1-${pack1}.pack"'
test_expect_success \
'index-pack results should match pack-objects ones' \
'cmp "test-1-${pack1}.idx" "1.idx" &&
cmp "test-2-${pack2}.idx" "2.idx"'
test_expect_success 'index-pack --verify on index version 1' '
git index-pack --verify "test-1-${pack1}.pack"
'
test_expect_success 'index-pack --verify on index version 2' '
git index-pack --verify "test-2-${pack2}.pack"
'
test_expect_success \
'index v2: force some 64-bit offsets with pack-objects' \
'pack3=$(git pack-objects --index-version=2,0x40000 test-3 <obj-list)'
if msg=$(git verify-pack -v "test-3-${pack3}.pack" 2>&1) ||
! (echo "$msg" | grep "pack too large .* off_t")
then
test_set_prereq OFF64_T
else
say "# skipping tests concerning 64-bit offsets"
fi
test_expect_success OFF64_T \
'index v2: verify a pack with some 64-bit offsets' \
'git verify-pack -v "test-3-${pack3}.pack"'
test_expect_success OFF64_T \
'64-bit offsets: should be different from previous index v2 results' \
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
'! cmp "test-2-${pack2}.idx" "test-3-${pack3}.idx"'
test_expect_success OFF64_T \
'index v2: force some 64-bit offsets with index-pack' \
'git index-pack --index-version=2,0x40000 -o 3.idx "test-1-${pack1}.pack"'
test_expect_success OFF64_T \
'64-bit offsets: index-pack result should match pack-objects one' \
'cmp "test-3-${pack3}.idx" "3.idx"'
test_expect_success OFF64_T 'index-pack --verify on 64-bit offset v2 (cheat)' '
# This cheats by knowing which lower offset should still be encoded
# in 64-bit representation.
git index-pack --verify --index-version=2,0x40000 "test-3-${pack3}.pack"
'
test_expect_success OFF64_T 'index-pack --verify on 64-bit offset v2' '
git index-pack --verify "test-3-${pack3}.pack"
'
# returns the object number for given object in given pack index
index_obj_nr()
{
idx_file=$1
object_sha1=$2
nr=0
git show-index < $idx_file |
while read offs sha1 extra
do
nr=$(($nr + 1))
test "$sha1" = "$object_sha1" || continue
echo "$(($nr - 1))"
break
done
}
# returns the pack offset for given object as found in given pack index
index_obj_offset()
{
idx_file=$1
object_sha1=$2
git show-index < $idx_file | grep $object_sha1 |
( read offs extra && echo "$offs" )
}
test_expect_success \
'[index v1] 1) stream pack to repository' \
'git index-pack --index-version=1 --stdin < "test-1-${pack1}.pack" &&
git prune-packed &&
git count-objects | ( read nr rest && test "$nr" -eq 1 ) &&
cmp "test-1-${pack1}.pack" ".git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.pack" &&
cmp "test-1-${pack1}.idx" ".git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.idx"'
test_expect_success \
'[index v1] 2) create a stealth corruption in a delta base reference' \
'# This test assumes file_101 is a delta smaller than 16 bytes.
# It should be against file_100 but we substitute its base for file_099
sha1_101=`git hash-object file_101` &&
sha1_099=`git hash-object file_099` &&
offs_101=`index_obj_offset 1.idx $sha1_101` &&
nr_099=`index_obj_nr 1.idx $sha1_099` &&
chmod +w ".git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.pack" &&
dd of=".git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.pack" seek=$(($offs_101 + 1)) \
if=".git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.idx" \
skip=$((4 + 256 * 4 + $nr_099 * 24)) \
bs=1 count=20 conv=notrunc &&
git cat-file blob $sha1_101 > file_101_foo1'
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
test_expect_success \
'[index v1] 3) corrupted delta happily returned wrong data' \
'test -f file_101_foo1 && ! cmp file_101 file_101_foo1'
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
test_expect_success \
'[index v1] 4) confirm that the pack is actually corrupted' \
'test_must_fail git fsck --full $commit'
test_expect_success \
'[index v1] 5) pack-objects happily reuses corrupted data' \
'pack4=$(git pack-objects test-4 <obj-list) &&
test -f "test-4-${pack1}.pack"'
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
test_expect_success \
'[index v1] 6) newly created pack is BAD !' \
'test_must_fail git verify-pack -v "test-4-${pack1}.pack"'
test_expect_success \
'[index v2] 1) stream pack to repository' \
'rm -f .git/objects/pack/* &&
git index-pack --index-version=2 --stdin < "test-1-${pack1}.pack" &&
git prune-packed &&
git count-objects | ( read nr rest && test "$nr" -eq 1 ) &&
cmp "test-1-${pack1}.pack" ".git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.pack" &&
cmp "test-2-${pack1}.idx" ".git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.idx"'
test_expect_success \
'[index v2] 2) create a stealth corruption in a delta base reference' \
'# This test assumes file_101 is a delta smaller than 16 bytes.
# It should be against file_100 but we substitute its base for file_099
sha1_101=`git hash-object file_101` &&
sha1_099=`git hash-object file_099` &&
offs_101=`index_obj_offset 1.idx $sha1_101` &&
nr_099=`index_obj_nr 1.idx $sha1_099` &&
chmod +w ".git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.pack" &&
dd of=".git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.pack" seek=$(($offs_101 + 1)) \
if=".git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.idx" \
skip=$((8 + 256 * 4 + $nr_099 * 20)) \
bs=1 count=20 conv=notrunc &&
git cat-file blob $sha1_101 > file_101_foo2'
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
test_expect_success \
'[index v2] 3) corrupted delta happily returned wrong data' \
'test -f file_101_foo2 && ! cmp file_101 file_101_foo2'
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
test_expect_success \
'[index v2] 4) confirm that the pack is actually corrupted' \
'test_must_fail git fsck --full $commit'
Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01 10:50:53 +01:00
test_expect_success \
'[index v2] 5) pack-objects refuses to reuse corrupted data' \
close another possibility for propagating pack corruption Abstract -------- With index v2 we have a per object CRC to allow quick and safe reuse of pack data when repacking. This, however, doesn't currently prevent a stealth corruption from being propagated into a new pack when _not_ reusing pack data as demonstrated by the modification to t5302 included here. The Context ----------- The Git database is all checksummed with SHA1 hashes. Any kind of corruption can be confirmed by verifying this per object hash against corresponding data. However this can be costly to perform systematically and therefore this check is often not performed at run time when accessing the object database. First, the loose object format is entirely compressed with zlib which already provide a CRC verification of its own when inflating data. Any disk corruption would be caught already in this case. Then, packed objects are also compressed with zlib but only for their actual payload. The object headers and delta base references are not deflated for obvious performance reasons, however this leave them vulnerable to potentially undetected disk corruptions. Object types are often validated against the expected type when they're requested, and deflated size must always match the size recorded in the object header, so those cases are pretty much covered as well. Where corruptions could go unnoticed is in the delta base reference. Of course, in the OBJ_REF_DELTA case, the odds for a SHA1 reference to get corrupted so it actually matches the SHA1 of another object with the same size (the delta header stores the expected size of the base object to apply against) are virtually zero. In the OBJ_OFS_DELTA case, the reference is a pack offset which would have to match the start boundary of a different base object but still with the same size, and although this is relatively much more "probable" than in the OBJ_REF_DELTA case, the probability is also about zero in absolute terms. Still, the possibility exists as demonstrated in t5302 and is certainly greater than a SHA1 collision, especially in the OBJ_OFS_DELTA case which is now the default when repacking. Again, repacking by reusing existing pack data is OK since the per object CRC provided by index v2 guards against any such corruptions. What t5302 failed to test is a full repack in such case. The Solution ------------ As unlikely as this kind of stealth corruption can be in practice, it certainly isn't acceptable to propagate it into a freshly created pack. But, because this is so unlikely, we don't want to pay the run time cost associated with extra validation checks all the time either. Furthermore, consequences of such corruption in anything but repacking should be rather visible, and even if it could be quite unpleasant, it still has far less severe consequences than actively creating bad packs. So the best compromize is to check packed object CRC when unpacking objects, and only during the compression/writing phase of a repack, and only when not streaming the result. The cost of this is minimal (less than 1% CPU time), and visible only with a full repack. Someone with a stats background could provide an objective evaluation of this, but I suspect that it's bad RAM that has more potential for data corruptions at this point, even in those cases where this extra check is not performed. Still, it is best to prevent a known hole for corruption when recreating object data into a new pack. What about the streamed pack case? Well, any client receiving a pack must always consider that pack as untrusty and perform full validation anyway, hence no such stealth corruption could be propagated to remote repositoryes already. It is therefore worthless doing local validation in that case. Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-10-31 16:31:08 +01:00
'test_must_fail git pack-objects test-5 <obj-list &&
test_must_fail git pack-objects --no-reuse-object test-6 <obj-list'
test_expect_success \
'[index v2] 6) verify-pack detects CRC mismatch' \
'rm -f .git/objects/pack/* &&
git index-pack --index-version=2 --stdin < "test-1-${pack1}.pack" &&
git verify-pack ".git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.pack" &&
obj=`git hash-object file_001` &&
nr=`index_obj_nr ".git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.idx" $obj` &&
chmod +w ".git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.idx" &&
printf xxxx | dd of=".git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.idx" conv=notrunc \
bs=1 count=4 seek=$((8 + 256 * 4 + `wc -l <obj-list` * 20 + $nr * 4)) &&
( while read obj
do git cat-file -p $obj >/dev/null || exit 1
done <obj-list ) &&
test_must_fail git verify-pack ".git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.pack"
'
test_expect_success 'running index-pack in the object store' '
rm -f .git/objects/pack/* &&
cp test-1-${pack1}.pack .git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.pack &&
(
cd .git/objects/pack
git index-pack pack-${pack1}.pack
) &&
test -f .git/objects/pack/pack-${pack1}.idx
'
test_done