subversion-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Terry Dooher <>
Subject RE: 1.9.4 fix
Date Tue, 03 May 2016 11:07:25 GMT
From: Stefan Fuhrmann [] 29 April 2016 08:29

> On 28.04.2016 09:35, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> > Op 27-apr.-2016 16:17 schreef "Terry Dooher"
> > <
> > <>>:
> >  > I’m in the process of dump/loading our repositories to take
> > advantage of FSFS format 7. Looking at the change list for 1.9.4 (out tomorrow),
it shows:
> >  >
> >  >        fsfs: fix a rare source of incomplete dump files and reports (r1717876)
> >  >
> >  > I’m having trouble finding a layman’s explanation of what this
> > issue means, however. (I’ve read
> > but it doesn’t make
> > much sense to me.)
> Hi Terry,
> We recently fixed 2 issues that were caused by an idiosyncrasy of FSFS interacting badly
with recent storage saving measures.
> Issue #4554 talks about two things, a set of conditions and their immediate impact (broken
dump file).  The dump file will simply not load and that's easy enough to detect.  The set
of conditions is as follows:
>    1. Representation sharing must be enabled (default since 1.6 or so).
>    2. At least one change must be committed using a 1.8+ server.
>    3. Property and directory deltification must not be enabled
>       (available since 1.8 but enabled by default only since 1.9).
>    4. A file gets committed whose contents happens to look exactly
>       like a serialized hash (i.e. a directory content or property list)
>       that has been committed with 1.8+.
>    5. No file with the same contents has been committed using a pre-1.8
>       server with rep-sharing enabled.
> Point 4 is unlikely to occur by accident.  By far your best shot at this is to have a
4-byte file containing "END\n", which happens to match an empty hash.  Another chance is committing
the contents of a .svn folders of a pre-1.7 working copy - which requires some serious fiddling
with the .svn folders.

That's a relief. Already this looks highly unlikely to occur in the wild, at least for us.
No-one has (so far, fingers crossed) committed a .svn folder and we have had deltification
enabled since we upgraded to 1.9 some time ago.

> These 5 conditions also apply to the issue fixed by r1717876 but the impact is different.
 A change may be omitted entirely from the dump file, if further conditions are met:
>    6. The file was empty or thought to be empty (see 3. and 4.)
>       before the change and empty or thought to be empty (again
>       (3. and 4.) afterwards.
>    7. The dump is produced by a 1.9.0 - 1.9.3 server.
> E.g. if a file contains had "END\n" in r10 and changed to "" in r11, that change would
not be dumped at all.  The dump file will not be broken but be incomplete.

> > Is there a chance this bug could happen silently and corrupt a dump in a way that
> > wouldn’t be picked up during svnadmin load (or by ‘svnadmin verify’ following
the load)?
> 'svnadmin load' will fail.  The dump has no contents for the respective file node ('svnadmin
dump' thought it was empty) but the MD5 and SHA1 stored in the dump don't match because they
refer to the actual contents.
> The best way to detect an incomplete dump is to run 'svn log -v -q'
> on the repository root.  The output must be the same for the old and new repository.

That's good to know. Tests so far show all dumps/loads to succeed, with no errors in my case.
I'll compare the logs to be certain, though.

> > I would use at least 1.9.3 for the process running 'svnadmin dump',
> > because of this fix in 1.9.3:
> > * svnadmin dump: preserve no-op changes (r1709388 et al, issue #4598)
> >
> That would be a third and unrelated issue.  It basically revolves around the question
"Does SVN need to preserve a change attempt if it did not actually modify any contents?".
 1.9.0 said "no", 1.9.3+ says "yes" again as would all older releases.
> No-op changes cannot be produced by standard SVN tooling but require direct low-level
API access or some tool that writes its own dump files (e.g. as part of the conversion from
CVS to SVN).  No contents was lost but the relation between commit message and changed paths
list got lost.

We did an interim upgrade to 1.9.3 prior to starting this process, though it doesn't look
like it will affect us as we don't have any API interactions with working copies beyond the
usual clients.

> -- Stefan^2.

Thanks Stefan, that was a really comprehensive overview and it's certainly put my mind at

View raw message