Subject: RE: Help needed on 2.54.0-rc0 t5301.13 looping.

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2026 11:55:01 -0400

On April 8, 2026 11:53 AM, I wrote (accidentally):
>To: 'Adrian Ratiu' <[email-masked]>; 'Jeff King'
<[email-masked]>
>Cc: 'Junio C Hamano' <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]'
><[email-masked]>
>Subject: RE: Help needed on 2.54.0-rc0 t5301.13 looping.
>
>On April 8, 2026 7:53 AM, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
>>To: Jeff King <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
>>Cc: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
>>Subject: Re: Help needed on 2.54.0-rc0 t5301.13 looping.
>>
>>On Wed, 08 Apr 2026, Jeff King <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 08, 2026 at 01:20:31AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suspect we could construct a related case that does fail on Linux
>>>> without the patch above. Imagine we actually have two hooks running
>>>> in parallel. The first one is fast and does not read its input, and
>>>> the second one is slow. We'll get SIGPIPE writing to the first one,
>>>> and then kill _both_ children. But that's wrong! There is no reason
>>>> to kill the second hook, as our intent was to ignore SIGPIPE.
>>>
>>> This would require running hooks in parallel, which isn't implemented
>>> yet for v2.54.0. But if I build on top of the ar/parallel-hooks
>>> topic, then this test:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/t/t5401-update-hooks.sh b/t/t5401-update-hooks.sh index
>>> 44ec875aef..97257763d3 100755
>>> --- a/t/t5401-update-hooks.sh
>>> +++ b/t/t5401-update-hooks.sh
>>> @@ -139,4 +139,43 @@ test_expect_success 'pre-receive hook that
>>> forgets to
>>read its input' '
>>>  	git push ./victim.git "+refs/heads/*:refs/heads/*"
>>>  '
>>>
>>> +test_expect_success 'hooks in parallel that do not read input' '
>>> +	# Add this to our $PATH to avoid having to write the whole trash
>>> +	# directory into our config options, which would require quoting.
>>> +	mkdir bin &&
>>> +	PATH=$PWD/bin:$PATH &&
>>> +
>>> +	write_script bin/hook-fast <<-\EOF &&
>>> +	# This hook does not read its input, so the parent process
>>> +	# may see SIGPIPE if it is not ignored. It should happen
>>> +	# relatively quickly.
>>> +	exit 0
>>> +	EOF
>>> +
>>> +	write_script bin/hook-slow <<-\EOF &&
>>> +	# This hook is slow, so we expect it to still be running
>>> +	# when the other hook has exited (and the parent has a pipe error
>>> +	# writing to it).
>>> +	#
>>> +	# So we want to be slow enough that we expect this to happen, but
not
>>> +	# so slow that the test takes forever. 1 second is probably enough
>>> +	# in practice (and if it is occasionally not on a loaded system, we
>>> +	# will err on the side of having the test pass).
>>> +	sleep 1
>>> +	exit 0
>>> +	EOF
>>> +
>>> +
>>> +	git init --bare parallel.git &&
>>> +	git -C parallel.git config hook.fast.command "hook-fast" &&
>>> +	git -C parallel.git config hook.fast.event pre-receive &&
>>> +	git -C parallel.git config hook.fast.parallel true &&
>>> +	git -C parallel.git config hook.slow.command "hook-slow" &&
>>> +	git -C parallel.git config hook.slow.event pre-receive &&
>>> +	git -C parallel.git config hook.slow.parallel true &&
>>> +	git -C parallel.git config hook.jobs 2 &&
>>> +
>>> +	git push ./parallel.git "+refs/heads/*:refs/heads/*"
>>> +'
>>> +
>>>  test_done
>>>
>>> fails reliably. And applying the patch I suggested earlier fixes it.
>>>
>>> So I think it's probably a good idea regardless, though I'm still
>>> curious to see if it solves Randall's non-parallel case on NonStop.
>>
>>Thanks Peff for the in-depth analysis, fix and test.
>>It is very much appreciated. I missed this case.
>>
>>I agree with your assesement: this must be fixed regardless if it also
>>fixes Randall's case or not (might be a separate root cause).
>>
>>I would proceed like this (obviously crediting you for the fix & test):
>>
>>If it fixes Randall's case:
>>   send a standalone bug-fix patch, then integrate the test into the
>>   parallel series.
>>else
>>   integrate both the fix and the test into the parallel series.
>>
>>@Randall please let us know if the fix proposed by Peff in the other
>>response works for you.
>
>This fix, however, causes an unreported infinite loop in t5571:
>
>expecting success of 5571.11 'sigpipe does not cause pre-push hook
failure':
>        test_hook --clobber pre-push <<-\EOF &&
>        exit 0
>        EOF
>        git push parent1 "refs/heads/b/*:refs/heads/b/*"
>
>Total 0 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0), pack-reused 0 (from 0) <and hung>

I was not patient enough. This continued eventually and passed.