[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1361?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13452560#comment-13452560
]
Henry Robinson commented on ZOOKEEPER-1361:
-------------------------------------------
Hey - sorry for the delay. I don't think the extra synchronisation in
sendPacket is strictly necessary (because note that the forwardingFollowers
lock is already held). However I think that the scoped lock around queuePacket
is probably not required, should be removed, not the call to
getForwardingFollowers. Make sense?
> Leader.lead iterates over 'learners' set without proper synchronisation
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ZOOKEEPER-1361
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1361
> Project: ZooKeeper
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 3.4.2
> Reporter: Henry Robinson
> Assignee: Henry Robinson
> Fix For: 3.4.4, 3.5.0
>
> Attachments: zk-memory-leak-fix.patch, ZOOKEEPER-1361-3.4.patch,
> ZOOKEEPER-1361-no-whitespace.patch, ZOOKEEPER-1361.patch
>
>
> This block:
> {code}
> HashSet<Long> followerSet = new HashSet<Long>();
> for(LearnerHandler f : learners)
> followerSet.add(f.getSid());
> {code}
> is executed without holding the lock on learners, so if there were ever a
> condition where a new learner was added during the initial sync phase, I'm
> pretty sure we'd see a concurrent modification exception. Certainly other
> parts of the code are very careful to lock on learners when iterating.
> It would be nice to use a {{ConcurrentHashMap}} to hold the learners instead,
> but I can't convince myself that this wouldn't introduce some correctness
> bugs. For example the following:
> Learners contains A, B, C, D
> Thread 1 iterates over learners, and gets as far as B.
> Thread 2 removes A, and adds E.
> Thread 1 continues iterating and sees a learner view of A, B, C, D, E
> This may be a bug if Thread 1 is counting the number of synced followers for
> a quorum count, since at no point was A, B, C, D, E a correct view of the
> quorum.
> In practice, I think this is actually ok, because I don't think ZK makes any
> strong ordering guarantees on learners joining or leaving (so we don't need a
> strong serialisability guarantee on learners) but I don't think I'll make
> that change for this patch. Instead I want to clean up the locking protocols
> on the follower / learner sets - to avoid another easy deadlock like the one
> we saw in ZOOKEEPER-1294 - and to do less with the lock held; i.e. to copy
> and then iterate over the copy rather than iterate over a locked set.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
