Hello Thomas and Andres,

Thank you for looking at this!

11.05.2024 06:26, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 3:57 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
On 2024-05-10 16:00:01 +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
and discovered that XLogRecordAssemble() calculates CRC over a buffer,
that might be modified by another process.
If, with "might", you mean that it's legitimate for that buffer to be
modified, I don't think so.  The bug is that something is modifying the buffer
despite it being exclusively locked.

I.e. what we likely have here is a bug somewhere in the hash index code.
I don't have a good grip on the higher level locking protocols of
hash.c, but one microscopic thing jumps out:

                 /*
                  * bucket buffer was not changed, but still needs to be
                  * registered to ensure that we can acquire a cleanup lock on
                  * it during replay.
                  */
                 if (!xlrec.is_primary_bucket_page)
                 {
                     uint8        flags = REGBUF_STANDARD |
REGBUF_NO_IMAGE | REGBUF_NO_CHANGE;

                     XLogRegisterBuffer(0, bucket_buf, flags);
                 }

That registers a buffer that is pinned but not content-locked, and we
tell xloginsert.c not to copy its image into the WAL, but it does it
anyway because:

         /*
          * If needs_backup is true or WAL checking is enabled for current
          * resource manager, log a full-page write for the current block.
          */
         include_image = needs_backup || (info & XLR_CHECK_CONSISTENCY) != 0;

So I guess it copies the image on dodo, which has:

                                     'PG_TEST_EXTRA' => 'ssl ldap
kerberos wal_consistency_checking libpq_encryption xid_wraparound'

Perhaps a no-image, no-change registered buffer should not be
including an image, even for XLR_CHECK_CONSISTENCY?  It's actually
useless for consistency checking too I guess, this issue aside,
because it doesn't change anything so there is nothing to check.

Yes, I think something wrong is here. I've reduced the reproducer to:
cat << 'EOF' | psql
CREATE TABLE hash_cleanup_heap(keycol INT);
CREATE INDEX hash_cleanup_index on hash_cleanup_heap USING HASH (keycol);

BEGIN;
INSERT INTO hash_cleanup_heap SELECT 1 FROM generate_series(1, 500) as i;
ROLLBACK;
EOF

cat << 'EOF' | psql &
INSERT INTO hash_cleanup_heap SELECT 1 FROM generate_series(1, 500) as i;

DROP TABLE hash_cleanup_heap;
EOF

cat << 'EOF' | psql &
SELECT pg_sleep(random() / 20);
VACUUM hash_cleanup_heap;
EOF
wait
grep 'TRAP:' server.log

("wal_consistency_checking = all" and the xloginsert patch are still required)

and with additional logging I see:
2024-05-11 03:45:23.424 UTC|law|regression|663ee9d3.1f96dd|LOG: 
!!!hashbucketcleanup| scan page buf: 1832
2024-05-11 03:45:23.424 UTC|law|regression|663ee9d3.1f96dd|CONTEXT: while vacuuming index "hash_cleanup_index" of relation "public.hash_cleanup_heap"
2024-05-11 03:45:23.424 UTC|law|regression|663ee9d3.1f96dd|STATEMENT:  VACUUM 
hash_cleanup_heap;
2024-05-11 03:45:23.424 UTC|law|regression|663ee9d3.1f96de|LOG: 
!!!_hash_doinsert| _hash_getbucketbuf_from_hashkey: 1822
2024-05-11 03:45:23.424 UTC|law|regression|663ee9d3.1f96de|STATEMENT:  INSERT INTO hash_cleanup_heap SELECT 1 FROM generate_series(1, 500) as i; 2024-05-11 03:45:23.424 UTC|law|regression|663ee9d3.1f96dd|LOG: !!!hashbucketcleanup| xlrec.is_primary_bucket_page: 0, buf: 1832, bucket_buf: 1822 2024-05-11 03:45:23.424 UTC|law|regression|663ee9d3.1f96dd|CONTEXT: while vacuuming index "hash_cleanup_index" of relation "public.hash_cleanup_heap"
2024-05-11 03:45:23.424 UTC|law|regression|663ee9d3.1f96dd|STATEMENT:  VACUUM 
hash_cleanup_heap;
2024-05-11 03:45:23.424 UTC|law|regression|663ee9d3.1f96de|LOG: 
!!!_hash_doinsert| _hash_relbuf(rel, 1822)
2024-05-11 03:45:23.424 UTC|law|regression|663ee9d3.1f96de|STATEMENT:  INSERT INTO hash_cleanup_heap SELECT 1 FROM generate_series(1, 500) as i;
TRAP: failed Assert("memcmp(block1_ptr, block1_copy, block1_len) == 0"), File: 
"xloginsert.c", Line: 949, PID: 2070237

Best regards,
Alexander


Reply via email to