* bug#66268: Guix makes invalid assumptions regarding guile-git guarantees leading to guix pull failing
@ 2023-09-29 16:52 wolf
2023-09-30 15:48 ` Simon Tournier
2024-11-26 18:15 ` Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: wolf @ 2023-09-29 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 66268
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 15289 bytes --]
Table of Contents
_________________
1. Guix makes an invalid assumption regarding guile-git's guarantees
.. 1. Root cause analysis
..... 1. Object size
..... 2. Cache space
.. 2. Reproduction to verify the analysis
2. Possible solutions
.. 1. Do not use `eq?'
.. 2. Increase the cache size / limits
.. 3. Ensure the id stability in guile-git
3. Questions
.. 1. Is this a regression?
4. Attachments
.. 1. d51135e8477118dc63a7e5462355cd27e884f4fb
.. 2. test.scm
1 Guix makes an invalid assumption regarding guile-git's guarantees
===================================================================
There is an assumption made by Guix regarding guile-git, which is not
true. The problem is demonstrated using my fork, since that is where
I encountered it first, but official Guix will hit the same problem
sooner or later. I will also provide an independent repository for
the verification.
Guix made a design decision to compare commit objects using eq?, based
on the assumption that guile-git will return the same object for the
same commit. However that assumption is wrong and can lead to fun
issues like:
,----
| scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (git) (guix git))
| scheme@(guile-user)> (define %repo (repository-open "/tmp/my-fork"))
| scheme@(guile-user)> (define %hash "d51135e8477118dc63a7e5462355cd27e884f4fb")
| scheme@(guile-user)> (commit-relation
| (commit-lookup %repo (string->oid %hash))
| (commit-lookup %repo (string->oid %hash)))
| $5 = unrelated
`----
This does break (at least) `guix pull':
,----
| Updating channel 'guix' from Git repository at 'https://git.sr.ht/~graywolf/guix'...
| guix pull: error: aborting update of channel 'guix' to commit 4dbd25fa0e09b40ba2ab01d1e64fa36db652b501, which is not a descendant of d51135e8477118dc63a7e5462355cd27e884f4fb
| hint: This could indicate that the channel has been tampered with and is trying to force a roll-back, preventing you from getting the latest updates. If you think this is not the case,
| explicitly allow non-forward updates.
`----
The commit actually is a descendant, but it is not found in the
`commit-closure' due to the `eq?' comparison being used. The
verification of the relation between the commits:
,----
| $ git log --first-parent --oneline -4
| 4dbd25fa0e (HEAD -> master, origin/master) etc/fork-guix: Use absolute path for the patch file.
| 601029b97a Merge updates from the Guix proper
| afa5eabc93 git-authenticate: Fix tracking of trusted parents.
| d51135e847 Merge updates from the Guix proper
`----
1.1 Root cause analysis
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Guile-git is a wrapper around libgit2, and libgit2 (as far as I can
tell) makes no guarantees about returning the same commit object every
time lookup is performed for the same hash. It just does it,
sometimes, due to the internal use of a cache.
There are two rules in place.
1.1.1 Object size
-----------------
Object has to be smaller than configured size limit for the object
type. For commits, that is 4096B. It can be increased
(`git_libgit2_opts' called with `GIT_OPT_SET_CACHE_OBJECT_LIMIT'), but
guile-git does not offer any binding for that functionality.
In the case illustrated above, the commit object for 4.1 has size of
4139B, and is therefore never cached. That means that a new object is
returned every time, and therefore they are never considered equal by
Guix. As you can see, the commit message, while long, is sensible and
useful, so it is fairly easy to hit the limit.
1.1.2 Cache space
-----------------
Cache is limited to 268435456B, and it is pruned if the need to get
more space arises. That is especially problematic because it could
lead to hard to debug failures based on the access pattern to the
repository.
Typical signed commit seems to be larger than 1kB. Based on the cache
size, rough calculation suggests that Guix (which requires the commits
to be signed) can only store somewhere around 252052 commits before
running into possible issues. Currently there are 64416 commits since
the channel introduction, so we are already getting close and it
*will* be a problem in the future, even if we keep the commits
smallish.
1.2 Reproduction to verify the analysis
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To verify that the analysis above is correct, I created a test
repository to run tests against. `head' refers to a commit at the
HEAD, it is a small one (210B libgit2's entry size). `large' refers
to a commit with a large (4kB) commit message, it is the parent of
`head'. `root' refers to the root commit. All other commits are of
210B entry size. The repository is located here[0].
When the 4.2 is executed, it seems to support the conclusions reached
in previous section. The output when executed on my machine is:
,----
| Checking (eq? (%commit X) (find-c (%hash X))) for X:
|
| ;;; (large #f)
|
| ;;; (head #t)
|
| ;;; (root #t)
| Collecting all commits...
| Checking if they match themselves...
| # of mismatches 300530 of 1578267 commits
| Relation between 'head and 'large: unrelated
`----
We can see that both `head' and `root' do match themselves, since they
are small and fit into the cache. However `large' does not fit into
the cache, and therefore we get new, distinct, object from each
`commit-lookup' call. That seems to confirm the hypothesis regarding
the limit on object size that fits into the cache.
After that we record all commits into a vhash, overwhelming the cache
and forcing evictions. After that we do a second sweep to check how
many of the commit will match itself. We can see that about 20% of
commits do not match, confirming the hypothesis regarding the cache
capacity.
And finally we see that `head' and `large' are unrelated, despite that
not being the case, after all, `head' is the parent of `large'. Git
tooling does confirm that:
,----
| $ git merge-base --is-ancestor 9b985229bcd 71f544c102a; echo $?
| 0
`----
0: <https://git.sr.ht/~graywolf/guix-guile-git-repro>
2 Possible solutions
====================
2.1 Do not use `eq?'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The correct solution is to stop using `eq?' to compare the commits
(and other objects from guile-git, if that is being done). That will
come at some performance cost, but the benefit of being actually
correct does out-weight that.
My partial solution is based on new record type, `<commit-set>', to
use instead of (guix sets).
,----
| (define-record-type <commit-set>
| (%make-commit-set vhash)
| commit-set?
| (vhash commit-set-vhash))
|
| (define (make-commit-set)
| (%make-commit-set vlist-null))
|
| (define (commit-set-contains? commit commit-set)
| (->bool (vhash-assoc (oid->string (commit-id commit))
| (commit-set-vhash commit-set))))
|
| (define (commit-set-insert commit commit-set)
| (%make-commit-set (vhash-cons (oid->string (commit-id commit))
| #t
| (commit-set-vhash commit-set))))
`----
It is not complete, for example I do not check that the commits do
come from the same repository.
However I believe similar approach is the preferred solution.
2.2 Increase the cache size / limits
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While the size limit for objects to be cache-able is configurable, the
maximum size of the cache is hard coded. However patching libgit2 is
always an option. But this does not really solve the issue, it just
pushes it down the line.
Removing the size limits is also an option, but would lead to unbound
memory usage.
2.3 Ensure the id stability in guile-git
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Technically it should be possible to improve guile-git to ensure the
object stability without patching the libgit2, but it would basically
involve a second cache, without size limits. It could probably
utilize weak hash tables to make the memory usage reasonable. However
it would be tricky to make sure everything is correctly wrapped.
3 Questions
===========
3.1 Is this a regression?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since this was the approach chosen by Guix, did guile-git or libgit2
used to guarantee this? Should this be reported as a regression?
4 Attachments
=============
4.1 d51135e8477118dc63a7e5462355cd27e884f4fb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
,----
| commit d51135e8477118dc63a7e5462355cd27e884f4fb
| Merge: 75daa689f1 0500af5556
| Author: Tomas Volf <wolf@wolfsden.cz>
| Date: Wed Sep 27 21:03:40 2023 +0200
|
| Merge updates from the Guix proper
|
| * upstream/master:
| Revert "build: Add missing guix-gc.timer file to binary tarball."
| gnu: tio: Update to 2.7.
| gnu: bcachefs-tools: Restore mount.bcachefs shell script version.
| gnu: bcachefs-tools: Remove obsolete phase.
| gnu: bcachefs-tools: Update to 1.2-0.1e35840.
| Revert "gnu: bcachefs-tools: Restyle format."
| gnu: sssd: Update to 2.9.2.
| gnu: wvkbd: Update to 0.14.1.
| gnu: yt-dlp: Update to 2023.09.24.
| gnu: lhasa: Update to 0.4.0.
| gnu: vcmi: Update to 1.3.2.
| gnu: cmark: Update to 0.30.3.
| gnu: python-tslearn: Update to 0.6.2.
| gnu: python-astropy: Update to 5.3.3.
| gnu: python-stdatamodels: Update to 1.8.0.
| gnu: python-roman-datamodels: Remove all test constraints.
| gnu: python-roman-datamodels: Update to 0.17.1.
| gnu: python-rad: Update to 0.17.1.
| gnu: python-pyvo: Update to 1.4.2.
| gnu: python-photutils: Update to 1.9.0.
| gnu: python-jwst: Update to 1.11.4.
| gnu: python-fitsio: Update to 1.2.0.
| gnu: python-crds: Update to 11.17.4.
| gnu: python-bayesicfitting: Update to 3.2.0.
| gnu: python-sunpy: Enable more tests.
| gnu: python-cdflib: Fix version detection.
| gnu: python-cdflib: Update to 1.1.0.
| gnu: python-astropy-healpix: Update to 1.0.0.
| gnu: splash: Update to 3.8.4.
| gnu: libxisf: Extend description.
| gnu: libxisf: Update to 0.2.9.
| gnu: python-coloful: Update to 0.5.5.
| gnu: python-pyotp: Update to 2.9.0.
| gnu: gajim: Clean up formatting.
| gnu: python-nbxmpp: Clean up formatting.
| gnu: gajim-openpgp: Update to 1.5.0.
| gnu: gajim-omemo: Update to 2.9.0.
| gnu: gajim: Update to 1.7.3.
| gnu: python-nbxmpp: Update to 4.2.2.
| gnu: transmission: Fix loading icons in pure environments.
| gnu: alex4: Remove non-free package.
| doc: Update bug-reference configuration snippet.
| tests: Assume ‘git’ is always available.
| git-download: Use “builtin:git-download” when available.
| perform-download: Use the ‘git’ command captured at configure time.
| build: Add dependency on Git.
| daemon: Add “git-download” built-in builder.
| perform-download: Remove unused one-argument clause.
| git-download: Honor the ‘GUIX_DOWNLOAD_FALLBACK_TEST’ environment variable.
| git-download: Move fallback code to (guix build git).
| tests: Adjust ‘guix graph --path’ test to latest Emacs changes.
| gnu: imgui: Update to 1.89.9.
| gnu: Add tracy.
| gnu: Add tracy-wayland.
| gnu: glfw: Patch dlopen calls.
| gnu: imgui: Enable freetype support.
| gnu: capstone: Update to 5.0.1.
| gnu: gtypist: Install the gtypist-mode Emacs major mode.
| multiqc: Don't propagate inputs.
| gnu: transmission: Restore HTML files in the default output.
| gnu: aalib: Really build the shared library on powerpc64le-linux.
| gnu: edk2-tools: Update to 202308.
| doc: Add new 'Circular Module Dependencies' section.
| gnu: embedded: Turn packages using top-level variables into procedures.
| gnu: avr: Delay all cross compilation packages.
| gnu: Add satdump.
| gnu: nng: Update to 1.5.2.
| gnu: sdrangel: Update to 7.16.0.
`----
4.2 test.scm
~~~~~~~~~~~~
,----
| (use-modules (ice-9 vlist)
| (git)
| (guix git))
|
| ;;; Tweak the path as necessary.
| (define %repo (repository-open "/home/wolf/tmp/guix-guile-git-repro"))
|
| ;;; All hashes that are of interest to us.
| (define %hashes '((large . "9b985229bcd447261b147c6bf70a86c2a345f234")
| (head . "71f544c102a658ed5f2f2258862f2d59cbe70b8b")
| (root . "db3f74122f4c384897ba7fddac73b893d19c1c67")))
| (define (%hash for)
| "Return a sha1 hash for a specified key."
| (assoc-ref %hashes for))
|
| (define %Xs
| (map car %hashes))
|
| (define (find-c hash)
| "Return a commit based on the string sha1 hash."
| (commit-lookup %repo (string->oid hash)))
|
| ;;; Memoize the commits so that we can compare against them later.
| (define %commits (map (λ (k) `(,k . ,(find-c (%hash k))))
| %Xs))
| (define (%commit for)
| "Return a memoized commit for a specified key."
| (assoc-ref %commits for))
|
| (display "Checking (eq? (%commit X) (find-c (%hash X))) for X:\n")
| (for-each (λ (x)
| (pk x (eq? (%commit x) (find-c (%hash x)))))
| %Xs)
|
| (display "Collecting all commits...\n")
| (define all-commits
| (let loop ((commits vlist-null)
| (hash (%hash 'head)))
| (let* ((c (find-c hash))
| (parents (commit-parents c))
| (commits (vhash-cons (oid->string (commit-id c))
| c
| commits)))
| (if (null? parents)
| commits
| (loop commits
| (oid->string (commit-id (car parents))))))))
| (display "Checking if they match themselves...\n")
| (format #t "# of mismatches ~a of ~a commits\n"
| (vlist-fold (λ (x total)
| (let ((hash (car x))
| (commit (cdr x)))
| (if (eq? commit (find-c hash))
| total
| (+ total 1))))
| 0
| all-commits)
| (vlist-length all-commits))
|
| (format #t "Relation between 'head and 'large: ~a\n"
| (commit-relation (%commit 'head)
| (%commit 'large)))
`----
Have a nice day,
W.
--
There are only two hard things in Computer Science:
cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* bug#66268: Guix makes invalid assumptions regarding guile-git guarantees leading to guix pull failing
2023-09-29 16:52 bug#66268: Guix makes invalid assumptions regarding guile-git guarantees leading to guix pull failing wolf
@ 2023-09-30 15:48 ` Simon Tournier
2023-10-02 20:54 ` wolf
2024-11-26 18:15 ` Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Simon Tournier @ 2023-09-30 15:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: wolf, 66268
Hi,
Hum, the updates seem:
+ libgit2 on Feb 17 2023,
+ guile-git on May 15 2022.
(See 8d8e1438ae5a2e50005b500dacd0a26be540fe69 and
b6bfe9ea6a1b19159455b34f1af4ac00ef9b94ab)
And some commits with large body are around:
+ 7b45ead9ec40a5ea1ef8332d55c2bb4beff85eb5 from Jul 18 2023
+ 1e6ddceb8318d413745ca1c9d91fde01b1e0364b from Feb 19 2023
+ 5897d873d0c902f08d13c38500eff11098f2a634 from Aug 10 2022
And I have not investigated more about their commit object size. Just
counting the number of characters per commit message. The one you
provided is about 3030, if I am correct. Here, let filter with the
criteria of 4500, why not. :-)
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ for ci in $(git log --format=%H --after=2022-05-13); do \
echo "$(git show -s $ci | wc -c) $ci" \
| awk '$1>4500{print $2 " " $1}' \
;done
7b45ead9ec40a5ea1ef8332d55c2bb4beff85eb5 4997
1e6ddceb8318d413745ca1c9d91fde01b1e0364b 16120
575a03ab3997edee08d20867228e886043d5240f 5511
5897d873d0c902f08d13c38500eff11098f2a634 6258
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
Well, it is probably not a regression. Or I am missing some details. :-)
I am probably overlooking something, from my understanding, the issue
arises for some corner cases when the bound of the closure does not fit
’eq?’. For these cases, instead of relying on ’setq’ using ’eq?’, we
could rely on ’set’ using ’equal?’. No?
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 at 18:52, wolf <wolf@wolfsden.cz> wrote:
> ,----
> | scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (git) (guix git))
> | scheme@(guile-user)> (define %repo (repository-open "/tmp/my-fork"))
> | scheme@(guile-user)> (define %hash "d51135e8477118dc63a7e5462355cd27e884f4fb")
> | scheme@(guile-user)> (commit-relation
> | (commit-lookup %repo (string->oid %hash))
> | (commit-lookup %repo (string->oid %hash)))
> | $5 = unrelated
> `----
[...]
> ,----
> | $ git merge-base --is-ancestor 9b985229bcd 71f544c102a; echo $?
> | 0
> `----
[...]
> 2 Possible solutions
> ====================
Naive question. Why not rely on “git merge-base --is-ancestor” for
implementing “commit-relation”?
Since f651a359691cbe4750f1fe8d14dd964f7971f91 from Sep 26 2023:
build: Add dependency on Git.
* configure.ac: Check for ‘git’ and substitute ‘GIT’.
* guix/config.scm.in (%git): New variable.
* guix/self.scm (compiled-guix): Define ‘git’ and pass it to
‘make-config.scm’.
(make-config.scm): Add #:git; emit a ‘%git’ variable.
* doc/guix.texi (Requirements): Add it.
we can assume Git is available by the code that run “commit-relation”,
no?
The implementation relying on “git merge-base --is-ancestor” does not
have the problem, right?
And from [1], it is 35x faster. Win-win, no? Because the fix for ’eq?’
will introduce performance cost and ’commit-relation’ will be even
slower, no?
Well, I do not know. My words are probably irrelevant.
Cheers,
simon
1: comparing commit-relation using Scheme+libgit2 vs shellout plumbing Git
Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
Tue, 12 Sep 2023 00:48:30 +0200
id:865y4gz5q9.fsf@gmail.com
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2023-09
https://yhetil.org/guix/865y4gz5q9.fsf@gmail.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* bug#66268: Guix makes invalid assumptions regarding guile-git guarantees leading to guix pull failing
2023-09-30 15:48 ` Simon Tournier
@ 2023-10-02 20:54 ` wolf
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: wolf @ 2023-10-02 20:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Tournier; +Cc: 66268
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5493 bytes --]
On 2023-09-30 17:48:55 +0200, Simon Tournier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Hum, the updates seem:
>
> + libgit2 on Feb 17 2023,
> + guile-git on May 15 2022.
>
> (See 8d8e1438ae5a2e50005b500dacd0a26be540fe69 and
> b6bfe9ea6a1b19159455b34f1af4ac00ef9b94ab)
>
> And some commits with large body are around:
>
> + 7b45ead9ec40a5ea1ef8332d55c2bb4beff85eb5 from Jul 18 2023
> + 1e6ddceb8318d413745ca1c9d91fde01b1e0364b from Feb 19 2023
> + 5897d873d0c902f08d13c38500eff11098f2a634 from Aug 10 2022
>
> And I have not investigated more about their commit object size. Just
> counting the number of characters per commit message. The one you
> provided is about 3030, if I am correct. Here, let filter with the
> criteria of 4500, why not. :-)
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> $ for ci in $(git log --format=%H --after=2022-05-13); do \
> echo "$(git show -s $ci | wc -c) $ci" \
> | awk '$1>4500{print $2 " " $1}' \
> ;done
> 7b45ead9ec40a5ea1ef8332d55c2bb4beff85eb5 4997
> 1e6ddceb8318d413745ca1c9d91fde01b1e0364b 16120
> 575a03ab3997edee08d20867228e886043d5240f 5511
> 5897d873d0c902f08d13c38500eff11098f2a634 6258
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> Well, it is probably not a regression. Or I am missing some details. :-)
Thank you for raising this up and making me look into it closer. The issue
(commits not being eq? to themselves) does happen for those listed above,
however commit-relation still works fine. I am unsure why, I spent most of
today on it and did not manage to find clear rules.
However the fact remains that when one is on
d51135e8477118dc63a7e5462355cd27e884f4fb, guix pull to
4dbd25fa0e09b40ba2ab01d1e64fa36db652b501 does fail. I pushed those commits into
https://git.sr.ht/~graywolf/guix-guile-git-repro as branch xxx in case anyone is
curious and wants to investigate.
>
> I am probably overlooking something, from my understanding, the issue
> arises for some corner cases when the bound of the closure does not fit
> ’eq?’. For these cases, instead of relying on ’setq’ using ’eq?’, we
> could rely on ’set’ using ’equal?’. No?
I do not believe so, the mismatch happens even for equal?. I do not know enough
about scheme to know whether guile-git could override equal? for the commit
record type, but it does not seem to do so.
scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (git) (guix git))
scheme@(guile-user)> (define %repo (repository-open "/home/wolf/src/guix"))
scheme@(guile-user)> (define %hash "1e6ddceb8318d413745ca1c9d91fde01b1e0364b")
scheme@(guile-user)> (equal? (commit-lookup %repo (string->oid %hash)) (commit-lookup %repo (string->oid %hash)))
$1 = #f
>
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 at 18:52, wolf <wolf@wolfsden.cz> wrote:
>
> > ,----
> > | scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (git) (guix git))
> > | scheme@(guile-user)> (define %repo (repository-open "/tmp/my-fork"))
> > | scheme@(guile-user)> (define %hash "d51135e8477118dc63a7e5462355cd27e884f4fb")
> > | scheme@(guile-user)> (commit-relation
> > | (commit-lookup %repo (string->oid %hash))
> > | (commit-lookup %repo (string->oid %hash)))
> > | $5 = unrelated
> > `----
>
> [...]
>
> > ,----
> > | $ git merge-base --is-ancestor 9b985229bcd 71f544c102a; echo $?
> > | 0
> > `----
>
> [...]
>
> > 2 Possible solutions
> > ====================
>
> Naive question. Why not rely on “git merge-base --is-ancestor” for
> implementing “commit-relation”?
>
> Since f651a359691cbe4750f1fe8d14dd964f7971f91 from Sep 26 2023:
>
> build: Add dependency on Git.
>
> * configure.ac: Check for ‘git’ and substitute ‘GIT’.
> * guix/config.scm.in (%git): New variable.
> * guix/self.scm (compiled-guix): Define ‘git’ and pass it to
> ‘make-config.scm’.
> (make-config.scm): Add #:git; emit a ‘%git’ variable.
> * doc/guix.texi (Requirements): Add it.
>
> we can assume Git is available by the code that run “commit-relation”,
> no?
>
> The implementation relying on “git merge-base --is-ancestor” does not
> have the problem, right?
Well, that is true. I forgot to mention this option, because there did not seem
to be a consensus regarding replacing more parts of guile-git with git proper.
But this would likely be the best solution if that approach is acceptable.
>
> And from [1], it is 35x faster. Win-win, no? Because the fix for ’eq?’
> will introduce performance cost and ’commit-relation’ will be even
> slower, no?
For what it is worth, the implementation using <commit-set> (I needed it for my
fork to be able to pull) is not noticeably slower. The slow down is likely
measurable, but since I did not even notice it I did not bother measuring it.
Not that I am arguing against using git.
>
> Well, I do not know. My words are probably irrelevant.
>
> Cheers,
> simon
>
>
> 1: comparing commit-relation using Scheme+libgit2 vs shellout plumbing Git
> Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
> Tue, 12 Sep 2023 00:48:30 +0200
> id:865y4gz5q9.fsf@gmail.com
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2023-09
> https://yhetil.org/guix/865y4gz5q9.fsf@gmail.com
--
There are only two hard things in Computer Science:
cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* bug#66268: Guix makes invalid assumptions regarding guile-git guarantees leading to guix pull failing
2023-09-29 16:52 bug#66268: Guix makes invalid assumptions regarding guile-git guarantees leading to guix pull failing wolf
2023-09-30 15:48 ` Simon Tournier
@ 2024-11-26 18:15 ` Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli @ 2024-11-26 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 66268, Adrien 'neox' Bourmault, Jason Self
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2349 bytes --]
Hi,
I've found a much smaller test case:
> git clone https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/gnuboot.git
> cd gnuboot
> guix git authenticate \
> bf2b91df54aa71ecbfab891d32000ad2d6af6093 \
> "E23C 26A5 DEEE C5FA 9CDD D57A 57BC 26A3 6871 16F6" \
> -k origin/keyring
The repository only consists of 683 commits for now.
The commit that is problematic is precisely the introduction commit
(bf2b91d). There are bigger commits messages in the history before that
but it seems not to be an issue.
A workaround I found is to substitute the commit bf2b91d ("Add
.guix-authorizations file for "guix git authenticate".") with the one
right after it (dde4223 Fix .guix-authorizations for Denis 'GNUtoo'
Carikli.).
So while this bug needs fixing, we are also looking for a workaround as
once a fix lands upstream, it could take some time to reach everybody
especially because we'd like to make guix git authenticate work, with
the guix packages from various distributions (PureOS has Guix 1.2),
without requiring to do a git pull which can probably take hours.
If I understood right, the workaround explained above is not sufficient
as at any time, pushing commits could break guix git authenticate, so
I'm also looking for a reliable way to avoid the condition that makes
guix git authenticate fail.
So I see 2 approaches, one is to write code that looks at the size of
commits, I've done that but then we can't easily reproduce the issues
if we use the commit right after bf2b91d. I've added big commits after
that.
I've now started to
rebase https://git.sr.ht/~graywolf/guix-guile-git-repro on top of some
commits in another repository that adds a .guix-authorizations file but
it will take between 24h and 48h to rebase on a VM on a D16 on tmpfs, so
it's not very practical for the tests.
Another way could be to remove the authentication setup with some code
like that:
> cp -f config .git/config
> rm -f .git/hooks/post-merge
> rm -f .git/hooks/pre-push
and then run the guix git authenticate command but I'm unsure if this
could have false negative and let through commit that break everything
when people clone the repository and run guix git authenticate for the
first time.
Also did other people encounter this issue in other git repositories?
This could also help with testing.
Denis.
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-11-26 18:38 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-09-29 16:52 bug#66268: Guix makes invalid assumptions regarding guile-git guarantees leading to guix pull failing wolf
2023-09-30 15:48 ` Simon Tournier
2023-10-02 20:54 ` wolf
2024-11-26 18:15 ` Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
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 read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).