Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 1/2] vinyl: init all vars before cleanup in vy_lsm_split_range()

[Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>]

>>> diff --git a/src/box/vy_lsm.c b/src/box/vy_lsm.c
>>> index 3d3f41b7a..04c9926a8 100644
>>> --- a/src/box/vy_lsm.c
>>> +++ b/src/box/vy_lsm.c
>>> @@ -134,6 +134,11 @@ vy_stmt_alloc(struct tuple_format *format, uint32_t bsize)
>>>  {
>>>  	uint32_t total_size = sizeof(struct vy_stmt) + format->field_map_size +
>>>  		bsize;
>>> +	struct errinj *inj = errinj(ERRINJ_VY_MAX_TUPLE_SIZE, ERRINJ_INT);
>>> +	if (inj != NULL && inj->iparam >= 0) {
>>> +		if (inj->iparam-- == 0)
>>
>> 1. You set ERRINJ_VY_MAX_TUPLE_SIZE to an integer. Why not to a boolean,
>> which would set it to false instead of decrement? That would make it
>> clear the injection works only once.
> 
> Cause integer allows setting delay of vy_stmt_alloc() failure.
> For instance, I don't want first invocation to vy_stmt_alloc()
> fail, but the second, third or tenth one - it may turn out to be
> vital. This patch fixes bug when first call of vy_stmt_alloc()
> during compaction fails; the next patch - if tenth call of
> vy_stmt_alloc() fails.

Nope, in the next patch you use 0 too. Moreover, when I changed it
to 10, I got the test hanging in 100% CPU. Regardless of with the
fix or without.

>> Also it looks too artificial. The injection basically simulates a tuple
>> with too big size which was inserted bypassing max_tuple_size check,
>> and suddenly it was checked here, already after insertion.
> 
> Konstantint said, that squashing two upserts of size 'x' may result
> in new vy_stmt with size > 'x'. Despite the fact that I did not
> attempt at reproducing this statement, I saw these errors appearing
> on production machine during compaction. I do not know the exact reason
> why they revealed, but it is a fact.

And still this particular test does not use any upserts. So OOM here
is more likely to happen than max tuple size violation.

>> Better add an OOM injection for malloc a few lines below, would be more
>> correct.