commit-reach: fix in_merge_bases_many bug

Commit Message

Philippe Blain via GitGitGadget Oct. 2, 2020, 2:58 p.m. UTC

From: Derrick Stolee <[e-mail]>

Way back in f9b8908b (commit.c: use generation numbers for
in_merge_bases(), 2018-05-01), a heuristic was used to short-circuit
the in_merge_bases() walk. This works just fine as long as the
caller is checking only two commits, but when there are multiple,
there is a possibility that this heuristic is _very wrong_.

Some code moves since then has changed this method to
repo_in_merge_bases_many() inside commit-reach.c. The heuristic
computes the minimum generation number of the "reference" list, then
compares this number to the generation number of the "commit".

In a recent topic, a test was added that used in_merge_bases_many()
to test if a commit was reachable from a number of commits pulled
from a reflog. However, this highlighted the problem: if any of the
reference commits have a smaller generation number than the given
commit, then the walk is skipped _even if there exist some with
higher generation number_.

This heuristic is wrong! It must check the MAXIMUM generation number
of the reference commits, not the MINIMUM.

This highlights a testing gap. t6600-test-reach.sh covers many
methods in commit-reach.c, including in_merge_bases() and
get_merge_bases_many(), but since these methods either restrict to
two input commits or actually look for the full list of merge bases,
they don't check this heuristic!

Add a possible input to "test-tool reach" that tests
in_merge_bases_many() and add tests to t6600-test-reach.sh that
cover this heuristic. This includes cases for the reference commits
having generation above and below the generation of the input commit,
but also having maximum generation below the generation of the input
commit.

The fix itself is to swap min_generation with a max_generation in
repo_in_merge_bases_many().

Helped-by: Johannes Schindelin <[e-mail]>
Reported-by: Srinidhi Kaushik <[e-mail]>
Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <[e-mail]>
---
    Fix in_merge_bases_many() with commit-graphs
    
    Johannes alerted me to the difficulties Srinidhi was having with 
    in_merge_bases_many() and commit-graphs. Sorry that I hadn't seen that
    thread and the issues therein.
    
    After working with Johannes to investigate what was happening, we found
    a 2-year-old bug in the generation number checks!
    
    Thanks, -Stolee

Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-739%2Fderrickstolee%2Fin-merge-bases-many-fix-v1
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-739/derrickstolee/in-merge-bases-many-fix-v1
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/739

 commit-reach.c        |  8 ++++----
 t/helper/test-reach.c |  2 ++
 t/t6600-test-reach.sh | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)


base-commit: 47ae905ffb98cc4d4fd90083da6bc8dab55d9ecc

Comments

Junio C Hamano Oct. 2, 2020, 3:59 p.m. UTC | #1

"Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <[e-mail]> writes:

> From: Derrick Stolee <[e-mail]>
>
> Way back in f9b8908b (commit.c: use generation numbers for
> in_merge_bases(), 2018-05-01), a heuristic was used to short-circuit
> the in_merge_bases() walk. This works just fine as long as the
> caller is checking only two commits, but when there are multiple,
> there is a possibility that this heuristic is _very wrong_.

Thanks.  That bug defeats the point of _many() part of the function.

> Some code moves since then has changed this method to
> repo_in_merge_bases_many() inside commit-reach.c. The heuristic
> computes the minimum generation number of the "reference" list, then
> compares this number to the generation number of the "commit".
>
> In a recent topic, a test was added that used in_merge_bases_many()
> to test if a commit was reachable from a number of commits pulled
> from a reflog. However, this highlighted the problem: if any of the
> reference commits have a smaller generation number than the given
> commit, then the walk is skipped _even if there exist some with
> higher generation number_.
>
> This heuristic is wrong! It must check the MAXIMUM generation number
> of the reference commits, not the MINIMUM.

Correct

>     Fix in_merge_bases_many() with commit-graphs
>     
>     Johannes alerted me to the difficulties Srinidhi was having with 
>     in_merge_bases_many() and commit-graphs. Sorry that I hadn't seen that
>     thread and the issues therein.
>     
>     After working with Johannes to investigate what was happening, we found
>     a 2-year-old bug in the generation number checks!
>     
>     Thanks, -Stolee

Good.  Thanks.

Junio C Hamano Oct. 2, 2020, 6:51 p.m. UTC | #2

"Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <[e-mail]> writes:

> The fix itself is to swap min_generation with a max_generation in
> repo_in_merge_bases_many().
>
> Helped-by: Johannes Schindelin <[e-mail]>
> Reported-by: Srinidhi Kaushik <[e-mail]>
> Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <[e-mail]>

The order of these looked iffy so I rearranged them in chrono order,
Srinidhi's series found it broken, and with Dscho's help, fix was
produced and you sent it with your sign off.

>  commit-reach.c        |  8 ++++----
>  t/helper/test-reach.c |  2 ++
>  t/t6600-test-reach.sh | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

I've applied this and then rebased Srinidhi's latest on top, with
the following to re-enable the commit-graph in the codepath.  t5533
and t6600 passes and when the fix in the message I am responding to
is reverted, t5533 again fails.

Thanks.

    SQUASH??? drop "hide the breakage under the rug" hack
    
    Derrick and Dscho spotted and fixed the incorrect optimization in
    in_merge_bases_many() when the commit-graph is in use, so there is
    no longer a reason why we would want to disable commit-graph locally
    in this codepath.

diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
index 98a578f5dc..8c91188677 100644
--- a/remote.c
+++ b/remote.c
@@ -2405,34 +2405,18 @@ static int is_reachable_in_reflog(const char *local, const struct ref *remote)
 	return ret;
 }
 
-/* Toggle the "commit-graph" feature; return the previously set state. */
-static int toggle_commit_graph(struct repository *repo, int disable) {
-	int prev = repo->commit_graph_disabled;
-	repo->commit_graph_disabled = disable;
-	return prev;
-}
-
 /*
  * Check for reachability of a remote-tracking
  * ref in the reflog entries of its local ref.
  */
 static void check_if_includes_upstream(struct ref *remote)
 {
-	int prev;
 	struct ref *local = get_local_ref(remote->name);
 	if (!local)
 		return;
 
-	/*
-	 * TODO: Remove "toggle_commit_graph()" calls around the check.
-	 * Depending on whether "commit-graph" enabled or not,
-	 * "in_merge_bases_many()" returns different results;
-	 * disable it temporarily when the check runs.
-	 */
-	prev = toggle_commit_graph(the_repository, 1);
 	if (is_reachable_in_reflog(local->name, remote) <= 0)
 		remote->unreachable = 1;
-	toggle_commit_graph(the_repository, prev);
 }
 
 static void apply_cas(struct push_cas_option *cas,

Derrick Stolee Oct. 2, 2020, 7:47 p.m. UTC | #3

On 10/2/2020 2:51 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
>> The fix itself is to swap min_generation with a max_generation in
>> repo_in_merge_bases_many().
>>
>> Helped-by: Johannes Schindelin <[e-mail]>
>> Reported-by: Srinidhi Kaushik <[e-mail]>
>> Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <[e-mail]>
> 
> The order of these looked iffy so I rearranged them in chrono order,
> Srinidhi's series found it broken, and with Dscho's help, fix was
> produced and you sent it with your sign off.

Sure. I can agree with that chronological order and will keep
that in mind for next time.

>>  commit-reach.c        |  8 ++++----
>>  t/helper/test-reach.c |  2 ++
>>  t/t6600-test-reach.sh | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  3 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> I've applied this and then rebased Srinidhi's latest on top, with
> the following to re-enable the commit-graph in the codepath.  t5533
> and t6600 passes and when the fix in the message I am responding to
> is reverted, t5533 again fails.
> 
> Thanks.

Thanks for double-checking. I also think that dropping the
"hide the error" patch is prudent.

Thanks,
-Stolee

Srinidhi Kaushik Oct. 2, 2020, 8:03 p.m. UTC | #4

Hello,

On 10/02/2020 14:58, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: Derrick Stolee <[e-mail]>
> 
> Way back in f9b8908b (commit.c: use generation numbers for
> in_merge_bases(), 2018-05-01), a heuristic was used to short-circuit
> the in_merge_bases() walk. This works just fine as long as the
> caller is checking only two commits, but when there are multiple,
> there is a possibility that this heuristic is _very wrong_.
> 
> Some code moves since then has changed this method to
> repo_in_merge_bases_many() inside commit-reach.c. The heuristic
> computes the minimum generation number of the "reference" list, then
> compares this number to the generation number of the "commit".
> 
> In a recent topic, a test was added that used in_merge_bases_many()
> to test if a commit was reachable from a number of commits pulled
> from a reflog. However, this highlighted the problem: if any of the
> reference commits have a smaller generation number than the given
> commit, then the walk is skipped _even if there exist some with
> higher generation number_.
> 
> This heuristic is wrong! It must check the MAXIMUM generation number
> of the reference commits, not the MINIMUM.
> 
> This highlights a testing gap. t6600-test-reach.sh covers many
> methods in commit-reach.c, including in_merge_bases() and
> get_merge_bases_many(), but since these methods either restrict to
> two input commits or actually look for the full list of merge bases,
> they don't check this heuristic!
> 
> Add a possible input to "test-tool reach" that tests
> in_merge_bases_many() and add tests to t6600-test-reach.sh that
> cover this heuristic. This includes cases for the reference commits
> having generation above and below the generation of the input commit,
> but also having maximum generation below the generation of the input
> commit.
> 
> The fix itself is to swap min_generation with a max_generation in
> repo_in_merge_bases_many().
> 
> Helped-by: Johannes Schindelin <[e-mail]>
> Reported-by: Srinidhi Kaushik <[e-mail]>
> Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <[e-mail]>
> ---
>     Fix in_merge_bases_many() with commit-graphs
>     
>     Johannes alerted me to the difficulties Srinidhi was having with 
>     in_merge_bases_many() and commit-graphs. Sorry that I hadn't seen that
>     thread and the issues therein.
>     
>     After working with Johannes to investigate what was happening, we found
>     a 2-year-old bug in the generation number checks!
>     
>     Thanks, -Stolee
> 
> Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-739%2Fderrickstolee%2Fin-merge-bases-many-fix-v1
> Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-739/derrickstolee/in-merge-bases-many-fix-v1
> Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/739
> 
>  commit-reach.c        |  8 ++++----
>  t/helper/test-reach.c |  2 ++
>  t/t6600-test-reach.sh | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/commit-reach.c b/commit-reach.c
> index efd5925cbb..50175b159e 100644
> --- a/commit-reach.c
> +++ b/commit-reach.c
> @@ -321,7 +321,7 @@ int repo_in_merge_bases_many(struct repository *r, struct commit *commit,
>  {
>  	struct commit_list *bases;
>  	int ret = 0, i;
> -	uint32_t generation, min_generation = GENERATION_NUMBER_INFINITY;
> +	uint32_t generation, max_generation = GENERATION_NUMBER_ZERO;
>  
>  	if (repo_parse_commit(r, commit))
>  		return ret;
> @@ -330,12 +330,12 @@ int repo_in_merge_bases_many(struct repository *r, struct commit *commit,
>  			return ret;
>  
>  		generation = commit_graph_generation(reference[i]);
> -		if (generation < min_generation)
> -			min_generation = generation;
> +		if (generation > max_generation)
> +			max_generation = generation;
>  	}
>  
>  	generation = commit_graph_generation(commit);
> -	if (generation > min_generation)
> +	if (generation > max_generation)
>  		return ret;

This is correct; good catch.

>  	bases = paint_down_to_common(r, commit,
> diff --git a/t/helper/test-reach.c b/t/helper/test-reach.c
> index 14a3655442..cda804ed79 100644
> --- a/t/helper/test-reach.c
> +++ b/t/helper/test-reach.c
> @@ -107,6 +107,8 @@ int cmd__reach(int ac, const char **av)
>  		printf("%s(A,B):%d\n", av[1], ref_newer(&oid_A, &oid_B));
>  	else if (!strcmp(av[1], "in_merge_bases"))
>  		printf("%s(A,B):%d\n", av[1], in_merge_bases(A, B));
> +	else if (!strcmp(av[1], "in_merge_bases_many"))
> +		printf("%s(A,X):%d\n", av[1], in_merge_bases_many(A, X_nr, X_array));
>  	else if (!strcmp(av[1], "is_descendant_of"))
>  		printf("%s(A,X):%d\n", av[1], repo_is_descendant_of(r, A, X));
>  	else if (!strcmp(av[1], "get_merge_bases_many")) {
> diff --git a/t/t6600-test-reach.sh b/t/t6600-test-reach.sh
> index 475564bee7..f807276337 100755
> --- a/t/t6600-test-reach.sh
> +++ b/t/t6600-test-reach.sh
> @@ -110,6 +110,36 @@ test_expect_success 'in_merge_bases:miss' '
>  	test_three_modes in_merge_bases
>  '
>  
> +test_expect_success 'in_merge_bases_many:hit' '
> +	cat >input <<-\EOF &&
> +	A:commit-6-8
> +	X:commit-6-9
> +	X:commit-5-7
> +	EOF
> +	echo "in_merge_bases_many(A,X):1" >expect &&
> +	test_three_modes in_merge_bases_many
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success 'in_merge_bases_many:miss' '
> +	cat >input <<-\EOF &&
> +	A:commit-6-8
> +	X:commit-7-7
> +	X:commit-8-6
> +	EOF
> +	echo "in_merge_bases_many(A,X):0" >expect &&
> +	test_three_modes in_merge_bases_many
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success 'in_merge_bases_many:miss-heuristic' '
> +	cat >input <<-\EOF &&
> +	A:commit-6-8
> +	X:commit-7-5
> +	X:commit-6-6
> +	EOF
> +	echo "in_merge_bases_many(A,X):0" >expect &&
> +	test_three_modes in_merge_bases_many
> +'
> +
>  test_expect_success 'is_descendant_of:hit' '
>  	cat >input <<-\EOF &&
>  	A:commit-5-7
> 
> base-commit: 47ae905ffb98cc4d4fd90083da6bc8dab55d9ecc
> -- 
> gitgitgadget

Thanks Derrick and Johannes, for identifying the problem
and fixing the bug.

Junio C Hamano Oct. 2, 2020, 8:03 p.m. UTC | #5

Derrick Stolee <[e-mail]> writes:

> Thanks for double-checking. I also think that dropping the
> "hide the error" patch is prudent.

Thanks again for a quick and straight-forward fix.  As I mentioned
elsewhere in the thread, it appears that we invented duplicate API
with parallel implementation in get_reachable_subset(), which seems
to be a strict superset of in_merge_bases_many(), and that may be
what led to an initial and incorrect "get_reachable_subset() is not
broken the same way as in_merge_bases_many() so use it instead"
response.  I haven't paid attention to the quality of implementation
of get_reachable_subset() as much as in_merge_bases_many() (e.g. I
know of an obvious way to optimize the latter) so far, but it would
be wonderful if we can eventually rewrite in_merge_bases_many() as a
very thin wrapper() around get_reachable_subset() without any
downside.

Derrick Stolee Oct. 2, 2020, 8:08 p.m. UTC | #6

On 10/2/2020 4:03 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Derrick Stolee <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
>> Thanks for double-checking. I also think that dropping the
>> "hide the error" patch is prudent.
> 
> Thanks again for a quick and straight-forward fix.  As I mentioned
> elsewhere in the thread, it appears that we invented duplicate API
> with parallel implementation in get_reachable_subset(), which seems
> to be a strict superset of in_merge_bases_many(), and that may be
> what led to an initial and incorrect "get_reachable_subset() is not
> broken the same way as in_merge_bases_many() so use it instead"
> response.  I haven't paid attention to the quality of implementation
> of get_reachable_subset() as much as in_merge_bases_many() (e.g. I
> know of an obvious way to optimize the latter) so far, but it would
> be wonderful if we can eventually rewrite in_merge_bases_many() as a
> very thin wrapper() around get_reachable_subset() without any
> downside.

I have self-assigned myself https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/issues/740
which will investigate these duplicates and see what can be done.

I know that the initial refactoring focused on keeping the "public"
interface the same and just creating shims between different method
prototypes. In this case, it might be worth doing a full replacement
since in_merge_bases_many() has so few callers.

I'll be proactive to look for other cases that might be tricky for
new contributors to find the "right" way to do it.

Thanks,
-Stolee

Patch

diff --git a/commit-reach.c b/commit-reach.c
index efd5925cbb..50175b159e 100644
--- a/commit-reach.c
+++ b/commit-reach.c
@@ -321,7 +321,7 @@  int repo_in_merge_bases_many(struct repository *r, struct commit *commit,
 {
 	struct commit_list *bases;
 	int ret = 0, i;
-	uint32_t generation, min_generation = GENERATION_NUMBER_INFINITY;
+	uint32_t generation, max_generation = GENERATION_NUMBER_ZERO;
 
 	if (repo_parse_commit(r, commit))
 		return ret;
@@ -330,12 +330,12 @@  int repo_in_merge_bases_many(struct repository *r, struct commit *commit,
 			return ret;
 
 		generation = commit_graph_generation(reference[i]);
-		if (generation < min_generation)
-			min_generation = generation;
+		if (generation > max_generation)
+			max_generation = generation;
 	}
 
 	generation = commit_graph_generation(commit);
-	if (generation > min_generation)
+	if (generation > max_generation)
 		return ret;
 
 	bases = paint_down_to_common(r, commit,
diff --git a/t/helper/test-reach.c b/t/helper/test-reach.c
index 14a3655442..cda804ed79 100644
--- a/t/helper/test-reach.c
+++ b/t/helper/test-reach.c
@@ -107,6 +107,8 @@  int cmd__reach(int ac, const char **av)
 		printf("%s(A,B):%d\n", av[1], ref_newer(&oid_A, &oid_B));
 	else if (!strcmp(av[1], "in_merge_bases"))
 		printf("%s(A,B):%d\n", av[1], in_merge_bases(A, B));
+	else if (!strcmp(av[1], "in_merge_bases_many"))
+		printf("%s(A,X):%d\n", av[1], in_merge_bases_many(A, X_nr, X_array));
 	else if (!strcmp(av[1], "is_descendant_of"))
 		printf("%s(A,X):%d\n", av[1], repo_is_descendant_of(r, A, X));
 	else if (!strcmp(av[1], "get_merge_bases_many")) {
diff --git a/t/t6600-test-reach.sh b/t/t6600-test-reach.sh
index 475564bee7..f807276337 100755
--- a/t/t6600-test-reach.sh
+++ b/t/t6600-test-reach.sh
@@ -110,6 +110,36 @@  test_expect_success 'in_merge_bases:miss' '
 	test_three_modes in_merge_bases
 '
 
+test_expect_success 'in_merge_bases_many:hit' '
+	cat >input <<-\EOF &&
+	A:commit-6-8
+	X:commit-6-9
+	X:commit-5-7
+	EOF
+	echo "in_merge_bases_many(A,X):1" >expect &&
+	test_three_modes in_merge_bases_many
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'in_merge_bases_many:miss' '
+	cat >input <<-\EOF &&
+	A:commit-6-8
+	X:commit-7-7
+	X:commit-8-6
+	EOF
+	echo "in_merge_bases_many(A,X):0" >expect &&
+	test_three_modes in_merge_bases_many
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'in_merge_bases_many:miss-heuristic' '
+	cat >input <<-\EOF &&
+	A:commit-6-8
+	X:commit-7-5
+	X:commit-6-6
+	EOF
+	echo "in_merge_bases_many(A,X):0" >expect &&
+	test_three_modes in_merge_bases_many
+'
+
 test_expect_success 'is_descendant_of:hit' '
 	cat >input <<-\EOF &&
 	A:commit-5-7