read-cache.c: fix writing "link" index ext with null base oid
Since commit 7db118303a (unpack_trees: fix breakage when o->src_index !=
o->dst_index - 2018-04-23) and changes in merge code to use separate
index_state for source and destination, when doing a merge with split
index activated, we may run into this line in unpack_trees():
o->result.split_index = init_split_index(&o->result);
This is by itself not wrong. But this split index information is not
fully populated (and it's only so when move_cache_to_base_index() is
called, aka force splitting the index, or loading index_state from a
file). Both "base_oid" and "base" in this case remain null.
So when writing the main index down, we link to this index with null
oid (default value after init_split_index()), which also means "no split
index" internally. This triggers an incorrect base index refresh:
warning: could not freshen shared index '.../sharedindex.0{40}'
This patch makes sure we will not refresh null base_oid (because the
file is never there). It also makes sure not to write "link" extension
with null base_oid in the first place (no point having it at
all). Read code already has protection against null base_oid.
There is also another side fix in remove_split_index() that causes a
crash when doing "git update-index --no-split-index" when base_oid in
the index file is null. In this case we will not load
istate->split_index->base but we dereference it anyway and are rewarded
with a segfault. This should not happen anymore, but it's still wrong to
dereference a potential NULL pointer, especially when we do check for
NULL pointer in the next code.
Reported-by: Luke Diamand <luke@diamand.org>
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This commit is contained in:
committed by
Junio C Hamano
parent
98cdfbb84a
commit
6e37c8ed3c
@ -440,24 +440,26 @@ void add_split_index(struct index_state *istate)
|
||||
void remove_split_index(struct index_state *istate)
|
||||
{
|
||||
if (istate->split_index) {
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* When removing the split index, we need to move
|
||||
* ownership of the mem_pool associated with the
|
||||
* base index to the main index. There may be cache entries
|
||||
* allocated from the base's memory pool that are shared with
|
||||
* the_index.cache[].
|
||||
*/
|
||||
mem_pool_combine(istate->ce_mem_pool, istate->split_index->base->ce_mem_pool);
|
||||
if (istate->split_index->base) {
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* When removing the split index, we need to move
|
||||
* ownership of the mem_pool associated with the
|
||||
* base index to the main index. There may be cache entries
|
||||
* allocated from the base's memory pool that are shared with
|
||||
* the_index.cache[].
|
||||
*/
|
||||
mem_pool_combine(istate->ce_mem_pool,
|
||||
istate->split_index->base->ce_mem_pool);
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* The split index no longer owns the mem_pool backing
|
||||
* its cache array. As we are discarding this index,
|
||||
* mark the index as having no cache entries, so it
|
||||
* will not attempt to clean up the cache entries or
|
||||
* validate them.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (istate->split_index->base)
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* The split index no longer owns the mem_pool backing
|
||||
* its cache array. As we are discarding this index,
|
||||
* mark the index as having no cache entries, so it
|
||||
* will not attempt to clean up the cache entries or
|
||||
* validate them.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
istate->split_index->base->cache_nr = 0;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* We can discard the split index because its
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user