Re: segfault when deleting folders in 1.6.2

See r37953.

~Neels

Paul Burba wrote:
> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Stefan Küng <tortoisesvn_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:22, Stefan Küng <tortoisesvn_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In the file libsvn_wc/adm_ops.c, function
>>> svn_wc_remove_from_revision_control(), line 2628:
>>>
>>> dir_entry = apr_hash_get(parent_entries, base_name,
>>> APR_HASH_KEY_STRING);
>>> if (dir_entry->depth != svn_depth_exclude)
>>> {
>>> svn_wc__entry_remove(parent_entries, base_name);
>>> SVN_ERR(svn_wc__entries_write(parent_entries, parent_access, pool));
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> the 'dir_entry' is NULL, and accessing it in the if-clause causes a
>>> segfault.
>>> From the crash dump I got, I can't see anything special about the path
>>> (it was F:\dev\svn\name\name), so no root path, no UNC path or anything
>>> else special I can think of.
>>>
>>> But the delete was called with --keep-local, so maybe that has something
>>> to do with it?
>> Some more information:
>> the folder which should be deleted is tree-conflicted (deleted in
>> repository, still present locally).
>>
>> Stefan
>
> Attached is a patch that adds a new update test to replicate this
> segfault, along with the very simple fix to address it.
>
> I'm going to hold off on committing though for two reasons:
>
> First, while this fixes the problem for 1.6.x, when running this new
> test on trunk it triggers an assert on line 2051 in
> entries.c:write_entry():
>
> 2048 if (entry->keep_local)
> 2049 {
> 2050 SVN_ERR_ASSERT(working_node != NULL);
> 2051 SVN_ERR_ASSERT(entry->schedule == svn_wc_schedule_delete);
> 2052 working_node->keep_local = TRUE;
> 2053 }
>
> This assert was added in r36105, but I can't figure out what its
> purpose is. Putting aside tree conflicts for a moment we can trigger
> this assert by simply deleting a path with a locally added subtree,
> e.g.:
>
> trunk_at_37912>svn st -v
> 1 1 jrandom .
> 1 1 jrandom A
> 1 1 jrandom A\mu
> 1 1 jrandom A\B
> 1 1 jrandom A\B\lambda
> 1 1 jrandom A\B\E
> 1 1 jrandom A\B\E\alpha
> 1 1 jrandom A\B\E\beta
> 1 1 jrandom A\B\F
> 1 1 jrandom A\C
> 1 1 jrandom A\D
> 1 1 jrandom A\D\gamma
> 1 1 jrandom A\D\G
> 1 1 jrandom A\D\G\rho
> 1 1 jrandom A\D\G\pi
> 1 1 jrandom A\D\G\tau
> 1 1 jrandom A\D\H
> 1 1 jrandom A\D\H\chi
> 1 1 jrandom A\D\H\omega
> 1 1 jrandom A\D\H\psi
> 1 1 jrandom iota
>
> trunk_at_37912>svn copy A\D A\C
> A A\C\D
>
> trunk_at_37912>svn delete A\C --keep-local
> D A\C\D\gamma
> D A\C\D\G\rho
> D A\C\D\G\pi
> D A\C\D\G\tau
> D A\C\D\G
> D A\C\D\H\chi
> D A\C\D\H\omega
> D A\C\D\H\psi
> D A\C\D\H
> ..\..\..\subversion\libsvn_wc\wc_db.c:2240: (apr_err=235000)
> svn: In file '..\..\..\subversion\libsvn_wc\entries.c' line 2051:
> assertion failed (entry->schedule == svn_wc_schedule_delete)
>
> Hyrum, I'm ccing you in the hope you can explain the purpose of this
> assert (apologies if I'm being dense!).
>
> ~~~~~
>
> Second, I'm wondering what additional limitations we should consider
> putting on operations on a tree conflicted directory before that TC is
> resolved or reverted. Obviously we can't commit a tree conflicted WC,
> but should we allow other operations, copies, moves, deletes, etc., of
> WC paths which are either a subtree of a tree conflicted directory or
> have a subtree that is tree conflicted. Or should all this be allowed
> and should it "work" (however that might be defined)? I'm CCing you
> TC guys in the hopes of prying some wisdom from your brains on this
> ;-)
>
> Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2358905
>

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2360289