From 9c0cece35a6bb835962ec940d943946bd8aba3d2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joey Hess <joeyh@joeyh.name>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 18:11:43 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] followup

---
 Annex/Ssh.hs                                  |  6 ++--
 ..._3338f896a983292bef576dcd369bba5a._comment | 30 +++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 doc/bugs/multiple_ssh_prompts__44___and_thread_blocked_indefinitely_in_an___63____63____63___transaction/comment_33_3338f896a983292bef576dcd369bba5a._comment

diff --git a/Annex/Ssh.hs b/Annex/Ssh.hs
index b9b64780af..9937204ee0 100644
--- a/Annex/Ssh.hs
+++ b/Annex/Ssh.hs
@@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ import Annex.LockPool
 #endif
 
 import Control.Concurrent.STM
+import Control.Concurrent.Async
 
 {- Some ssh commands are fed stdin on a pipe and so should be allowed to
  - consume it. But ssh commands that are not piped stdin should generally
@@ -203,12 +204,13 @@ prepSocket socketfile sshhost sshparams = do
 			-- See if ssh can connect in batch mode,
 			-- if so there's no need to block for a password
 			-- prompt.
-			unlessM (tryssh ["-o", "BatchMode=true"]) $
+			unlessM (tryssh ["-o", "BatchMode=true"]) $ do
+				liftIO $ print "ok then"
 				-- ssh needs to prompt (probably)
 				-- If the user enters the wrong password,
 				-- ssh will tell them, so we can ignore
 				-- failure.
-				void $ prompt $ tryssh []
+				let p = void $ prompt $ tryssh [] in p `concurrently` p
 	-- Try to ssh to the host quietly. Returns True if ssh apparently
 	-- connected to the host successfully. If ssh failed to connect,
 	-- returns False.
diff --git a/doc/bugs/multiple_ssh_prompts__44___and_thread_blocked_indefinitely_in_an___63____63____63___transaction/comment_33_3338f896a983292bef576dcd369bba5a._comment b/doc/bugs/multiple_ssh_prompts__44___and_thread_blocked_indefinitely_in_an___63____63____63___transaction/comment_33_3338f896a983292bef576dcd369bba5a._comment
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..d185f85ba8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/bugs/multiple_ssh_prompts__44___and_thread_blocked_indefinitely_in_an___63____63____63___transaction/comment_33_3338f896a983292bef576dcd369bba5a._comment
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+[[!comment format=mdwn
+ username="joey"
+ subject="""comment 33"""
+ date="2018-11-19T21:57:13Z"
+ content="""
+Interesting that one side of the deadlock is a MVar and the other side is STM:
+
+	MVar deadlock detected CallStack (from HasCallStack):
+	  debugLocks, called at Messages.hs:265:12 in main:Messages
+	STM deadlock detected CallStack (from HasCallStack):
+	  debugLocks, called at Messages.hs:265:12 in main:Messages
+
+This seems consistent with a single call of `waitDisplayChange` being involved.
+That's the STM side. The MVar side is the `takeMVar` call in `prompt`.
+
+So somehow `waitDisplayChange` is blocking and of course the `takeMVar`
+also blocks waiting for it. But with only a single caller to `waitDisplayChange`,
+my bug fix in concurrent-output can't have been the actual fix. It has to
+block with a single caller.
+
+Oh, what if `waitDisplayChange` is called when there are no display changes
+pending, because there are no console regions being displayed? 
+I think it would still block then!
+
+In a bench test I've at least verified it hangs in that situation, though I have not
+triggered ghc's deadlock detection. Which is good enough for me, I know
+I need to fix this problem in concurrent-output, and also it seems my earlier
+fix to git-annex is enough to avoid triggering the underlying bug; git-annex
+won't need to depend on the fixed concurrent-output.
+"""]]