[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-10338) DistCp masks potential CRC check failures
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-10338?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15270094#comment-15270094
]
Lin Yiqun commented on HDFS-10338:
--
Hi, [~raviprak], thanks for review.
I agree with your comment. Is there any other comment for the latest patch?
[~yzhangal], could you please have a time to see this patch in DistCp?
If there are no other commet, I will post a new patch later.
> DistCp masks potential CRC check failures
> -
>
> Key: HDFS-10338
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-10338
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: distcp
>Affects Versions: 2.7.1
>Reporter: Elliot West
>Assignee: Lin Yiqun
> Attachments: HDFS-10338.001.patch, HDFS-10338.002.patch
>
>
> There appear to be edge cases whereby CRC checks may be circumvented when
> requests for checksums from the source or target file system fail. In this
> event CRCs could differ between the source and target and yet the DistCp copy
> would succeed, even when the 'skip CRC check' option is not being used.
> The code in question is contained in the method
> [{{org.apache.hadoop.tools.util.DistCpUtils#checksumsAreEqual(...)}}|https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/release-2.7.1/hadoop-tools/hadoop-distcp/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/tools/util/DistCpUtils.java#L457]
> Specifically this code block suggests that if there is a failure when trying
> to read the source or target checksum then the method will return {{true}}
> (i.e. the checksums are equal), implying that the check succeeded. In actual
> fact we just failed to obtain the checksum and could not perform the check.
> {code}
> try {
> sourceChecksum = sourceChecksum != null ? sourceChecksum :
> sourceFS.getFileChecksum(source);
> targetChecksum = targetFS.getFileChecksum(target);
> } catch (IOException e) {
> LOG.error("Unable to retrieve checksum for " + source + " or "
> + target, e);
> }
> return (sourceChecksum == null || targetChecksum == null ||
> sourceChecksum.equals(targetChecksum));
> {code}
> I believe that at the very least the caught {{IOException}} should be
> re-thrown. If this is not deemed desirable then I believe an option
> ({{--strictCrc}}?) should be added to enforce a strict check where we require
> that both the source and target CRCs are retrieved, are not null, and are
> then compared for equality. If for any reason either of the CRCs retrievals
> fail then an exception is thrown.
> Clearly some {{FileSystems}} do not support CRCs and invocations to
> {{FileSystem.getFileChecksum(...)}} return {{null}} in these instances. I
> would suggest that these should fail a strict CRC check to prevent users
> developing a false sense of security in their copy pipeline.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-10338) DistCp masks potential CRC check failures
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-10338?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15269909#comment-15269909
]
Ravi Prakash commented on HDFS-10338:
-
{{ignoreFailures}} would be a tragically confusing and misnamed variable. I
would propose something like {{ignoreCRCerrors}}
> DistCp masks potential CRC check failures
> -
>
> Key: HDFS-10338
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-10338
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: distcp
>Affects Versions: 2.7.1
>Reporter: Elliot West
>Assignee: Lin Yiqun
> Attachments: HDFS-10338.001.patch, HDFS-10338.002.patch
>
>
> There appear to be edge cases whereby CRC checks may be circumvented when
> requests for checksums from the source or target file system fail. In this
> event CRCs could differ between the source and target and yet the DistCp copy
> would succeed, even when the 'skip CRC check' option is not being used.
> The code in question is contained in the method
> [{{org.apache.hadoop.tools.util.DistCpUtils#checksumsAreEqual(...)}}|https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/release-2.7.1/hadoop-tools/hadoop-distcp/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/tools/util/DistCpUtils.java#L457]
> Specifically this code block suggests that if there is a failure when trying
> to read the source or target checksum then the method will return {{true}}
> (i.e. the checksums are equal), implying that the check succeeded. In actual
> fact we just failed to obtain the checksum and could not perform the check.
> {code}
> try {
> sourceChecksum = sourceChecksum != null ? sourceChecksum :
> sourceFS.getFileChecksum(source);
> targetChecksum = targetFS.getFileChecksum(target);
> } catch (IOException e) {
> LOG.error("Unable to retrieve checksum for " + source + " or "
> + target, e);
> }
> return (sourceChecksum == null || targetChecksum == null ||
> sourceChecksum.equals(targetChecksum));
> {code}
> I believe that at the very least the caught {{IOException}} should be
> re-thrown. If this is not deemed desirable then I believe an option
> ({{--strictCrc}}?) should be added to enforce a strict check where we require
> that both the source and target CRCs are retrieved, are not null, and are
> then compared for equality. If for any reason either of the CRCs retrievals
> fail then an exception is thrown.
> Clearly some {{FileSystems}} do not support CRCs and invocations to
> {{FileSystem.getFileChecksum(...)}} return {{null}} in these instances. I
> would suggest that these should fail a strict CRC check to prevent users
> developing a false sense of security in their copy pipeline.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-10338) DistCp masks potential CRC check failures
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-10338?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15266143#comment-15266143
]
Hadoop QA commented on HDFS-10338:
--
| (/) *{color:green}+1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m 21s
{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m 0s
{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 4 new or modified test
files. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 7m
23s {color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 20s
{color} | {color:green} trunk passed with JDK v1.8.0_92 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 16s
{color} | {color:green} trunk passed with JDK v1.7.0_95 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
14s {color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 0m 23s
{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m
13s {color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 0m
29s {color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 14s
{color} | {color:green} trunk passed with JDK v1.8.0_92 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 14s
{color} | {color:green} trunk passed with JDK v1.7.0_95 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 0m
18s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 16s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0_92 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 0m 16s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 15s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_95 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 0m 15s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
11s {color} | {color:green} hadoop-tools/hadoop-distcp: patch generated 0 new +
59 unchanged - 1 fixed = 59 total (was 60) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 0m 20s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m
11s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s {color} | {color:green} Patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 0m
37s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 13s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0_92 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 13s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_95 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 8m 59s
{color} | {color:green} hadoop-distcp in the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0_92.
{color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 8m 16s
{color} | {color:green} hadoop-distcp in the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_95.
{color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
19s {color} | {color:green} Patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black} 31m 21s {color}
| {color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Image:yetus/hadoop:cf2ee45 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12801690/HDFS-10338.002.patch |
| JIRA Issue | HDFS-10338 |
| Optional Tests | asflicense compile javac javadoc mvninstall mvnsite
unit findbugs checkstyle |
| uname | Linux fba05478089c 3.13.0-36-lowlatency #63-Ubuntu SMP PREEMPT Wed
Sep 3 21:56:12 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux |
| Build tool | maven |
| Personality | /testptch/hadoop/patchprocess/precommit/personality/provided.sh
|
| git revision | trunk / 971a
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-10338) DistCp masks potential CRC check failures
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-10338?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15263646#comment-15263646
]
Hadoop QA commented on HDFS-10338:
--
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m 11s
{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m 0s
{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 1 new or modified test
files. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 6m
45s {color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 14s
{color} | {color:green} trunk passed with JDK v1.8.0_91 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 17s
{color} | {color:green} trunk passed with JDK v1.7.0_95 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
14s {color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 0m 22s
{color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m
14s {color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 0m
30s {color} | {color:green} trunk passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 12s
{color} | {color:green} trunk passed with JDK v1.8.0_91 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 14s
{color} | {color:green} trunk passed with JDK v1.7.0_95 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 0m
18s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 14s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0_91 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 0m 14s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 14s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_95 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 0m 14s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m
11s {color} | {color:green} hadoop-tools/hadoop-distcp: patch generated 0 new +
60 unchanged - 1 fixed = 60 total (was 61) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvnsite {color} | {color:green} 0m 20s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m
11s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s {color} | {color:green} Patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 0m
37s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 11s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0_91 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 13s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_95 {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 13m 58s {color}
| {color:red} hadoop-distcp in the patch failed with JDK v1.8.0_91. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 13m 45s {color}
| {color:red} hadoop-distcp in the patch failed with JDK v1.7.0_95. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
18s {color} | {color:green} Patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black} 40m 38s {color}
| {color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| JDK v1.8.0_91 Failed junit tests | hadoop.tools.TestDistCpViewFs |
| | hadoop.tools.TestIntegration |
| | hadoop.tools.TestExternalCall |
| JDK v1.7.0_95 Failed junit tests | hadoop.tools.TestDistCpViewFs |
| | hadoop.tools.TestIntegration |
| | hadoop.tools.TestExternalCall |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Image:yetus/hadoop:cf2ee45 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12801393/HDFS-10338.001.patch |
| JIRA Issue | HDFS-10338 |
| Optional Tests | asflicense compile javac javadoc mvninstall mvnsite
un
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-10338) DistCp masks potential CRC check failures
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-10338?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15261760#comment-15261760
]
Elliot West commented on HDFS-10338:
[~liuml07], [~linyiqun] I agree with all of the comments made and thank you
both for taking the time to look into this.
I look forward to seeing the patch.
> DistCp masks potential CRC check failures
> -
>
> Key: HDFS-10338
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-10338
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: distcp
>Affects Versions: 2.7.1
>Reporter: Elliot West
>Assignee: Lin Yiqun
>
> There appear to be edge cases whereby CRC checks may be circumvented when
> requests for checksums from the source or target file system fail. In this
> event CRCs could differ between the source and target and yet the DistCp copy
> would succeed, even when the 'skip CRC check' option is not being used.
> The code in question is contained in the method
> [{{org.apache.hadoop.tools.util.DistCpUtils#checksumsAreEqual(...)}}|https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/release-2.7.1/hadoop-tools/hadoop-distcp/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/tools/util/DistCpUtils.java#L457]
> Specifically this code block suggests that if there is a failure when trying
> to read the source or target checksum then the method will return {{true}}
> (i.e. the checksums are equal), implying that the check succeeded. In actual
> fact we just failed to obtain the checksum and could not perform the check.
> {code}
> try {
> sourceChecksum = sourceChecksum != null ? sourceChecksum :
> sourceFS.getFileChecksum(source);
> targetChecksum = targetFS.getFileChecksum(target);
> } catch (IOException e) {
> LOG.error("Unable to retrieve checksum for " + source + " or "
> + target, e);
> }
> return (sourceChecksum == null || targetChecksum == null ||
> sourceChecksum.equals(targetChecksum));
> {code}
> I believe that at the very least the caught {{IOException}} should be
> re-thrown. If this is not deemed desirable then I believe an option
> ({{--strictCrc}}?) should be added to enforce a strict check where we require
> that both the source and target CRCs are retrieved, are not null, and are
> then compared for equality. If for any reason either of the CRCs retrievals
> fail then an exception is thrown.
> Clearly some {{FileSystems}} do not support CRCs and invocations to
> {{FileSystem.getFileChecksum(...)}} return {{null}} in these instances. I
> would suggest that these should fail a strict CRC check to prevent users
> developing a false sense of security in their copy pipeline.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-10338) DistCp masks potential CRC check failures
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-10338?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15261456#comment-15261456
]
Lin Yiqun commented on HDFS-10338:
--
Hi, [~teabot], I have two comments for this:
* It looks the option {{ignoreFailures}} that [~liuml07] suggested will be
better. In one sense, the {{strictCrc}} option has same meaning with
{{skipcrccheck}} which are both doing a crc check. However now, we will do a
strict crc check, there will be more failures in checksum comparing. So the new
option {{ignoreFailures}} will be reasonable.
* I agree with you that some {{FileSystems}} do not support CRCs should be as a
failed case.
Assign this work to me. If there are no other comments, I will post a patch
later for addressing the comments as mentioned above.
> DistCp masks potential CRC check failures
> -
>
> Key: HDFS-10338
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-10338
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: distcp
>Affects Versions: 2.7.1
>Reporter: Elliot West
>
> There appear to be edge cases whereby CRC checks may be circumvented when
> requests for checksums from the source or target file system fail. In this
> event CRCs could differ between the source and target and yet the DistCp copy
> would succeed, even when the 'skip CRC check' option is not being used.
> The code in question is contained in the method
> [{{org.apache.hadoop.tools.util.DistCpUtils#checksumsAreEqual(...)}}|https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/release-2.7.1/hadoop-tools/hadoop-distcp/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/tools/util/DistCpUtils.java#L457]
> Specifically this code block suggests that if there is a failure when trying
> to read the source or target checksum then the method will return {{true}}
> (i.e. the checksums are equal), implying that the check succeeded. In actual
> fact we just failed to obtain the checksum and could not perform the check.
> {code}
> try {
> sourceChecksum = sourceChecksum != null ? sourceChecksum :
> sourceFS.getFileChecksum(source);
> targetChecksum = targetFS.getFileChecksum(target);
> } catch (IOException e) {
> LOG.error("Unable to retrieve checksum for " + source + " or "
> + target, e);
> }
> return (sourceChecksum == null || targetChecksum == null ||
> sourceChecksum.equals(targetChecksum));
> {code}
> I believe that at the very least the caught {{IOException}} should be
> re-thrown. If this is not deemed desirable then I believe an option
> ({{--strictCrc}}?) should be added to enforce a strict check where we require
> that both the source and target CRCs are retrieved, are not null, and are
> then compared for equality. If for any reason either of the CRCs retrievals
> fail then an exception is thrown.
> Clearly some {{FileSystems}} do not support CRCs and invocations to
> {{FileSystem.getFileChecksum(...)}} return {{null}} in these instances. I
> would suggest that these should fail a strict CRC check to prevent users
> developing a false sense of security in their copy pipeline.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (HDFS-10338) DistCp masks potential CRC check failures
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-10338?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15261127#comment-15261127
]
Mingliang Liu commented on HDFS-10338:
--
I'm favor of propagating the IOException thrown by {{getFileChecksum()}}. The
retriable command will take care of it, and after all retry-attempts the copy
mapper will handle failures accordingly. Moreover, I believe this is orthogonal
to the {{ignoreFailures}} option.
Another point to mention is that, the {{checksumsAreEqual()}} has a
conflict/confusing javadoc. It claims:
{code}
* @return If either checksum couldn't be retrieved, the function returns
* false. If checksums are retrieved, the function returns true if they match,
* and false otherwise.
* @throws IOException if there's an exception while retrieving checksums.
{code}
While it has a {{throws IOException}} signature, it does not really throw any
exception.
> DistCp masks potential CRC check failures
> -
>
> Key: HDFS-10338
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-10338
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: distcp
>Affects Versions: 2.7.1
>Reporter: Elliot West
>
> There appear to be edge cases whereby CRC checks may be circumvented when
> requests for checksums from the source or target file system fail. In this
> event CRCs could differ between the source and target and yet the DistCp copy
> would succeed, even when the 'skip CRC check' option is not being used.
> The code in question is contained in the method
> [{{org.apache.hadoop.tools.util.DistCpUtils#checksumsAreEqual(...)}}|https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/release-2.7.1/hadoop-tools/hadoop-distcp/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/tools/util/DistCpUtils.java#L457]
> Specifically this code block suggests that if there is a failure when trying
> to read the source or target checksum then the method will return {{true}}
> (i.e. the checksums are equal), implying that the check succeeded. In actual
> fact we just failed to obtain the checksum and could not perform the check.
> {code}
> try {
> sourceChecksum = sourceChecksum != null ? sourceChecksum :
> sourceFS.getFileChecksum(source);
> targetChecksum = targetFS.getFileChecksum(target);
> } catch (IOException e) {
> LOG.error("Unable to retrieve checksum for " + source + " or "
> + target, e);
> }
> return (sourceChecksum == null || targetChecksum == null ||
> sourceChecksum.equals(targetChecksum));
> {code}
> I believe that at the very least the caught {{IOException}} should be
> re-thrown. If this is not deemed desirable then I believe an option
> ({{--strictCrc}}?) should be added to enforce a strict check where we require
> that both the source and target CRCs are retrieved, are not null, and are
> then compared for equality. If for any reason either of the CRCs retrievals
> fail then an exception is thrown.
> Clearly some {{FileSystems}} do not support CRCs and invocations to
> {{FileSystem.getFileChecksum(...)}} return {{null}} in these instances. I
> would suggest that these should fail a strict CRC check to prevent users
> developing a false sense of security in their copy pipeline.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
