On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:56 AM Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@ovn.org> wrote:
>
> On 11/30/20 8:45 PM, Han Zhou wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 8:41 AM Dumitru Ceara <dce...@redhat.com
<mailto:dce...@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> It's possible that the IDL client processes multiple jsonrpc updates
> >> in a single ovsdb_idl_run().
> >>
> >> Considering the following updates processed in a single IDL run:
> >> 1. Update row R1 from table A while R1 is also referenced by row R2
from
> >> table B:
> >> - this adds R1 to table A's track_list.
> >> 2. Delete row R1 from table A while R1 is also referenced by row R2
from
> >> table B:
> >> - because row R2 still refers to row R1, this will create an orphan
> >> R1.
> >> - at this point R1 is still in table A's hmap.
> >>
> >> When the IDL client calls ovsdb_idl_track_clear() after it has finished
> >> processing the tracked changes, row R1 gets freed leaving a dangling
> >> pointer in table A's hmap.
> >>
> >> To fix this we don't free rows in ovsdb_idl_track_clear() if they are
> >> orphan and still referenced by other rows, i.e., the row's 'dst_arcs'
> >> list is not empty. Later, when all arc sources (e.g., R2) are
> >> deleted, the orphan R1 will be cleaned up as well.
> >>
> >> The only exception is when the whole contents of the IDL are flushed,
> >> in ovsdb_idl_db_clear(), in which case it's safe to free all rows.
> >>
> >> Reported-by: Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@ovn.org <mailto:
i.maxim...@ovn.org>>
> >> Fixes: 932104f483ef ("ovsdb-idl: Add support for change tracking.")
> >> Signed-off-by: Dumitru Ceara <dce...@redhat.com <mailto:
dce...@redhat.com>>
> >> ---
> >> lib/ovsdb-idl.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
> >> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/lib/ovsdb-idl.c b/lib/ovsdb-idl.c
> >> index e0c9833..0841a2e 100644
> >> --- a/lib/ovsdb-idl.c
> >> +++ b/lib/ovsdb-idl.c
> >> @@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ struct ovsdb_idl_db {
> >> struct uuid last_id;
> >> };
> >>
> >> -static void ovsdb_idl_db_track_clear(struct ovsdb_idl_db *);
> >> +static void ovsdb_idl_db_track_clear(struct ovsdb_idl_db *, bool
flush_all);
> >> static void ovsdb_idl_db_add_column(struct ovsdb_idl_db *,
> >> const struct ovsdb_idl_column *);
> >> static void ovsdb_idl_db_omit(struct ovsdb_idl_db *,
> >> @@ -660,7 +660,7 @@ ovsdb_idl_db_clear(struct ovsdb_idl_db *db)
> >> ovsdb_idl_row_destroy_postprocess(db);
> >>
> >> db->cond_seqno = 0;
> >> - ovsdb_idl_db_track_clear(db);
> >> + ovsdb_idl_db_track_clear(db, true);
> >>
> >> if (changed) {
> >> db->change_seqno++;
> >> @@ -1955,7 +1955,7 @@ ovsdb_idl_track_is_updated(const struct
ovsdb_idl_row *row,
> >> * loop when it is ready to do ovsdb_idl_run() again.
> >> */
> >> static void
> >> -ovsdb_idl_db_track_clear(struct ovsdb_idl_db *db)
> >> +ovsdb_idl_db_track_clear(struct ovsdb_idl_db *db, bool flush_all)
> >> {
> >> size_t i;
> >>
> >> @@ -1989,7 +1989,18 @@ ovsdb_idl_db_track_clear(struct ovsdb_idl_db
*db)
> >> free(row->tracked_old_datum);
> >> row->tracked_old_datum = NULL;
> >> }
> >> - free(row);
> >> +
> >> + /* Rows that were reused as orphan after being
processed
> >> + * for deletion are still in the table hmap and
will be
> >> + * cleaned up when their src arcs are removed.
> >> + *
> >> + * The exception is when 'destroy' is explicitly
set to
> >> + * 'true' which usually happens when the complete
IDL
> >> + * contents are being flushed.
> >> + */
> >> + if (flush_all ||
ovs_list_is_empty(&row->dst_arcs)) {
> >> + free(row);
> >> + }
> >
> > Here is a problem. The row R1 is now unparsed and datum freed. However,
when R2 is deleted, R1 will be pushed to the tracked change list again and
when the user examines it in tracked changes and accesses the old data, it
will crash.
>
> It is an ophan row and, also, tracked_old_datum already freed,
> so it should not be iterable. See:
> f0d23f67954c ("ovsdb-idl: Fix iteration over tracked rows with no actual
data.")
>
Thanks Ilya for the explanation. This makes sense. So the row becomes a
"pure orphaned row" after being handled here in ovsdb_idl_db_track_clear().
I wonder if some comments should be added to the code to clarify these
tricky scenarios.
Acked-by: Han Zhou <hz...@ovn.org>
> >
> >> }
> >> }
> >> }
> >> @@ -2004,7 +2015,7 @@ ovsdb_idl_db_track_clear(struct ovsdb_idl_db *db)
> >> void
> >> ovsdb_idl_track_clear(struct ovsdb_idl *idl)
> >> {
> >> - ovsdb_idl_db_track_clear(&idl->data);
> >> + ovsdb_idl_db_track_clear(&idl->data, false);
> >> }
> >>
> >> static void
> >>
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
