[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

[PATCH] FSFS sanity check

From: Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 01:13:52 +0200

I'm trying add a basic sanity check to cover the ridiculous bogosity
where the root noderev thinks its predecessor is about 20 revisions
old...

[[[
Index: subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c
===================================================================
--- subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c (revision 1178264)
+++ subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c (working copy)
@@ -5880,6 +5880,35 @@ write_hash_rep(svn_filesize_t *size,
   return svn_stream_printf(whb->stream, pool, "ENDREP\n");
 }
 
+/* Sanity check ROOT_NODEREV, a candidate for being the root node-revision
+ of (not yet committed) revision REV. Use OCEAN for temporary allocations.
+ */
+static APR_INLINE svn_error_t *
+validate_root_noderev(node_revision_t *root_noderev,
+ svn_revnum_t rev,
+ apr_pool_t *pool)
+{
+ SVN_DBG(("root_noderev->predecessor_id=%s\n",
+ svn_fs_fs__id_unparse(root_noderev->predecessor_id, pool)->data));
+ SVN_DBG(("root_noderev->predecessor_count=%d\n",
+ root_noderev->predecessor_count));
+
+ /* Bogosity seen on svn.apache.org; see
+ http://mid.gmane.org/20111002202833.GA12373@daniel3.local
+ */
+ if (root_noderev->predecessor_count != -1
+ && root_noderev->predecessor_count != rev);
+ {
+ return svn_error_createf(SVN_ERR_FS_CORRUPT, NULL,
+ _("predecessor count for "
+ "the root node-revision is wrong: "
+ "found %d, committing r%ld"),
+ root_noderev->predecessor_count, rev);
+ }
+
+ return SVN_NO_ERROR;
+}
+
 /* Copy a node-revision specified by id ID in fileystem FS from a
    transaction into the proto-rev-file FILE. Set *NEW_ID_P to a
    pointer to the new node-id which will be allocated in POOL.
@@ -5897,6 +5926,10 @@ write_hash_rep(svn_filesize_t *size,
    If REPS_TO_CACHE is not NULL, append to it a copy (allocated in
    REPS_POOL) of each data rep that is new in this revision.
 
+ AT_ROOT is true if the node revision being written is the root
+ node-revision. It is only controls additional sanity checking
+ logic.
+
    Temporary allocations are also from POOL. */
 static svn_error_t *
 write_final_rev(const svn_fs_id_t **new_id_p,
@@ -5909,6 +5942,7 @@ write_final_rev(const svn_fs_id_t **new_id_p,
                 apr_off_t initial_offset,
                 apr_array_header_t *reps_to_cache,
                 apr_pool_t *reps_pool,
+ svn_boolean_t at_root,
                 apr_pool_t *pool)
 {
   node_revision_t *noderev;
@@ -5945,7 +5979,7 @@ write_final_rev(const svn_fs_id_t **new_id_p,
           svn_pool_clear(subpool);
           SVN_ERR(write_final_rev(&new_id, file, rev, fs, dirent->id,
                                   start_node_id, start_copy_id, initial_offset,
- reps_to_cache, reps_pool,
+ reps_to_cache, reps_pool, FALSE,
                                   subpool));
           if (new_id && (svn_fs_fs__id_rev(new_id) == rev))
             dirent->id = svn_fs_fs__id_copy(new_id, pool);
@@ -6043,6 +6077,8 @@ write_final_rev(const svn_fs_id_t **new_id_p,
   noderev->id = new_id;
 
   /* Write out our new node-revision. */
+ if (at_root)
+ SVN_ERR(validate_root_noderev(noderev, rev, pool));
   SVN_ERR(svn_fs_fs__write_noderev(svn_stream_from_aprfile2(file, TRUE, pool),
                                    noderev, ffd->format,
                                    svn_fs_fs__fs_supports_mergeinfo(fs),
@@ -6322,7 +6358,7 @@ commit_body(void *baton, apr_pool_t *pool)
   root_id = svn_fs_fs__id_txn_create("0", "0", cb->txn->id, pool);
   SVN_ERR(write_final_rev(&new_root_id, proto_file, new_rev, cb->fs, root_id,
                           start_node_id, start_copy_id, initial_offset,
- cb->reps_to_cache, cb->reps_pool,
+ cb->reps_to_cache, cb->reps_pool, TRUE,
                           pool));
 
   /* Write the changed-path information. */
]]]

Looks fine?

Then how is it possible that I get the following error:
    svn: E160004: predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong: found 1, committing r1
? Since the error says "found 1, committing r1", the if() block
raising the error should not have been entered!

???

Thanks,

Daniel
Received on 2011-10-03 01:14:49 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.