files_transaction_prepare(): fix handling of ref lock failure

Since dc39e09942 (files_ref_store: use a transaction to update packed refs, 2017-09-08), failure to lock a reference has been handled incorrectly by `files_transaction_prepare()`. If `lock_ref_for_update()` fails in the lock-acquisition loop of that function, it sets `ret` then breaks out of that loop. Prior to dc39e09942, that was OK, because the only thing following the loop was the cleanup code. But dc39e09942 added another blurb of code between the loop and the cleanup. That blurb sometimes resets `ret` to zero, making the cleanup code think that the locking was successful. Specifically, whenever * One or more reference deletions have been processed successfully in the lock-acquisition loop. (Processing the first such reference causes a packed-ref transaction to be initialized.) * Then `lock_ref_for_update()` fails for a subsequent reference. Such a failure can happen for a number of reasons, such as the old SHA-1 not being correct, lock contention, etc. This causes a `break` out of the lock-acquisition loop. * The `packed-refs` lock is acquired successfully and `ref_transaction_prepare()` succeeds for the packed-ref transaction. This has the effect of resetting `ret` back to 0, and making the cleanup code think that lock acquisition was successful. In that case, any reference updates that were processed prior to breaking out of the loop would be carried out (loose and packed), but the reference that couldn't be locked and any subsequent references would silently be ignored. This can easily cause data loss if, for example, the user was trying to push a new name for an existing branch while deleting the old name. After the push, the branch could be left unreachable, and could even subsequently be garbage-collected. This problem was noticed in the context of deleting one reference and creating another in a single transaction, when the two references D/F conflict with each other, like git update-ref --stdin <<EOF delete refs/foo create refs/foo/bar HEAD EOF This triggers the above bug because the deletion is processed successfully for `refs/foo`, then the D/F conflict causes `lock_ref_for_update()` to fail when `refs/foo/bar` is processed. In this case the transaction *should* fail, but instead it causes `refs/foo` to be deleted without creating `refs/foo`. This could easily result in data loss. The fix is simple: instead of just breaking out of the loop, jump directly to the cleanup code. This fixes some tests in t1404 that were added in the previous commit. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>

Michael Haggerty committed Oct 24, 2017 at 17:16 UTC da5267f1b66dfe83a92698e49fa10dee5f74224f
2 files changed +9 -9
refs/files-backend.c
+1 -1
@@ -2527,7 +2527,7 @@ static int files_transaction_prepare(struct ref_store *ref_store,
2527 ret = lock_ref_for_update(refs, update, transaction,
2528 head_ref, &affected_refnames, err);
2529 if (ret)
2530 - break;
2530 + goto cleanup;
2531
2532 if (update->flags & REF_DELETING &&
2533 !(update->flags & REF_LOG_ONLY) &&
t/t1404-update-ref-errors.sh
+8 -8
@@ -271,11 +271,11 @@ test_expect_success 'D/F conflict prevents add short + delete long' '
271 df_test refs/df-as-dl --add-del foo foo/bar
272 '
273
274 -test_expect_failure 'D/F conflict prevents delete long + add short' '
274 +test_expect_success 'D/F conflict prevents delete long + add short' '
275 df_test refs/df-dl-as --del-add foo/bar foo
276 '
277
278 -test_expect_failure 'D/F conflict prevents delete short + add long' '
278 +test_expect_success 'D/F conflict prevents delete short + add long' '
279 df_test refs/df-ds-al --del-add foo foo/bar
280 '
281
@@ -287,17 +287,17 @@ test_expect_success 'D/F conflict prevents add short + delete long packed' '
287 df_test refs/df-as-dlp --pack --add-del foo foo/bar
288 '
289
290 -test_expect_failure 'D/F conflict prevents delete long packed + add short' '
290 +test_expect_success 'D/F conflict prevents delete long packed + add short' '
291 df_test refs/df-dlp-as --pack --del-add foo/bar foo
292 '
293
294 -test_expect_failure 'D/F conflict prevents delete short packed + add long' '
294 +test_expect_success 'D/F conflict prevents delete short packed + add long' '
295 df_test refs/df-dsp-al --pack --del-add foo foo/bar
296 '
297
298 # Try some combinations involving symbolic refs...
299
300 -test_expect_failure 'D/F conflict prevents indirect add long + delete short' '
300 +test_expect_success 'D/F conflict prevents indirect add long + delete short' '
301 df_test refs/df-ial-ds --sym-add --add-del foo/bar foo
302 '
303
@@ -309,11 +309,11 @@ test_expect_success 'D/F conflict prevents indirect add short + indirect delete
309 df_test refs/df-ias-idl --sym-add --sym-del --add-del foo foo/bar
310 '
311
312 -test_expect_failure 'D/F conflict prevents indirect delete long + indirect add short' '
312 +test_expect_success 'D/F conflict prevents indirect delete long + indirect add short' '
313 df_test refs/df-idl-ias --sym-add --sym-del --del-add foo/bar foo
314 '
315
316 -test_expect_failure 'D/F conflict prevents indirect add long + delete short packed' '
316 +test_expect_success 'D/F conflict prevents indirect add long + delete short packed' '
317 df_test refs/df-ial-dsp --sym-add --pack --add-del foo/bar foo
318 '
319
@@ -325,7 +325,7 @@ test_expect_success 'D/F conflict prevents add long + indirect delete short pack
325 df_test refs/df-al-idsp --sym-del --pack --add-del foo/bar foo
326 '
327
328 -test_expect_failure 'D/F conflict prevents indirect delete long packed + indirect add short' '
328 +test_expect_success 'D/F conflict prevents indirect delete long packed + indirect add short' '
329 df_test refs/df-idlp-ias --sym-add --sym-del --pack --del-add foo/bar foo
330 '
331