[Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 2/2] box: fix an assertion failure in box.ctl.promote()

[Serge Petrenko]

26.05.2021 21:46, Vladislav Shpilevoy пишет:
>>>> @@ -1618,14 +1618,29 @@ box_promote(void)
>>>>                     txn_limbo.owner_id);
>>>>                return -1;
>>>>            }
>>>> +        if (txn_limbo_is_empty(&txn_limbo)) {
>>>> +            wait_lsn = txn_limbo.confirmed_lsn;
>>>> +            goto promote;
>>>> +        }
>>>>        }
>>>>    -    /*
>>>> -     * promote() is a no-op on the limbo owner, so all the rows
>>>> -     * in the limbo must've come through the applier meaning they already
>>>> -     * have an lsn assigned, even if their WAL write hasn't finished yet.
>>>> -     */
>>>> -    wait_lsn = txn_limbo_last_synchro_entry(&txn_limbo)->lsn;
>>>> +    struct txn_limbo_entry *last_entry;
>>>> +    last_entry = txn_limbo_last_synchro_entry(&txn_limbo);
>>>> +    /* Wait for the last entries WAL write. */
>>>> +    if (last_entry->lsn < 0) {
>>>> +        if (wal_sync(NULL) < 0)
>>>> +            return -1;
>>>> +        if (txn_limbo_is_empty(&txn_limbo)) {
>>>> +            wait_lsn = txn_limbo.confirmed_lsn;
>>>> +            goto promote;
>>>> +        }
>>>> +        if (last_entry != txn_limbo_last_synchro_entry(&txn_limbo)) {
>>> This is a bit dangerous. We cache a pointer and then go to fiber_yield,
>>> which switches context, at this moment the pointer become dangling one
>>> and we simply can't be sure if it _were_ reused. IOW, Serge are we
>>> 100% sure that the same pointer with same address but with new data
>>> won't appear here as last entry in limbo?
>> I agree this solution is not perfect.
>>
>> An alternative would be to do the following:
>> 1) Check that the limbo owner hasn't changed
>> 2) Check that the last entry has positive lsn (e.g. it's not a new entry which
>>      wasn't yet written to WAL). And that this lsn is equal to the lsn of our entry.
>>
>> But what if our entry was confirmed and destroyed during wal_sync()? We can't compare
>> other entries lsn with this ones.
> As decided in the chat, you can use txn->id. It is unique until
> restart and should help to detect if the last transaction has
> changed.

Yep, thanks for the suggestion!

Here's the diff:

=============================================================

diff --git a/src/box/box.cc b/src/box/box.cc
index 3d9cd0e57..3baae6afe 100644
--- a/src/box/box.cc
+++ b/src/box/box.cc
@@ -1628,13 +1628,19 @@ box_promote(void)
         last_entry = txn_limbo_last_synchro_entry(&txn_limbo);
         /* Wait for the last entries WAL write. */
         if (last_entry->lsn < 0) {
+               int64_t tid = last_entry->txn->id;
                 if (wal_sync(NULL) < 0)
                         return -1;
+               if (former_leader_id != txn_limbo.owner_id) {
+                       diag_set(ClientError, ER_INTERFERING_PROMOTE,
+                                txn_limbo.owner_id);
+                       return -1;
+               }
                 if (txn_limbo_is_empty(&txn_limbo)) {
                         wait_lsn = txn_limbo.confirmed_lsn;
                         goto promote;
                 }
-               if (last_entry != 
txn_limbo_last_synchro_entry(&txn_limbo)) {
+               if (tid != 
txn_limbo_last_synchro_entry(&txn_limbo)->txn->id) {
                         diag_set(ClientError, ER_QUORUM_WAIT, quorum,
                                  "new synchronous transactions appeared");
                         return -1;



=============================================================

-- 
Serge Petrenko