Tony Wu created HDFS-9236:
-----------------------------

             Summary: Add sanity check for block size during block recovery
                 Key: HDFS-9236
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-9236
             Project: Hadoop HDFS
          Issue Type: Bug
    Affects Versions: 2.7.1
            Reporter: Tony Wu
            Assignee: Tony Wu


Ran into an issue while running test against faulty data-node code. 

Currently in DataNode.java:
{code:java}
  /** Block synchronization */
  void syncBlock(RecoveringBlock rBlock,
                         List<BlockRecord> syncList) throws IOException {
…

    // Calculate the best available replica state.
    ReplicaState bestState = ReplicaState.RWR;
…

    // Calculate list of nodes that will participate in the recovery
    // and the new block size
    List<BlockRecord> participatingList = new ArrayList<BlockRecord>();
    final ExtendedBlock newBlock = new ExtendedBlock(bpid, blockId,
        -1, recoveryId);
    switch(bestState) {
…
    case RBW:
    case RWR:
      long minLength = Long.MAX_VALUE;
      for(BlockRecord r : syncList) {
        ReplicaState rState = r.rInfo.getOriginalReplicaState();
        if(rState == bestState) {
          minLength = Math.min(minLength, r.rInfo.getNumBytes());
          participatingList.add(r);
        }
      }
      newBlock.setNumBytes(minLength);
      break;
…
    }
…
    nn.commitBlockSynchronization(block,
        newBlock.getGenerationStamp(), newBlock.getNumBytes(), true, false,
        datanodes, storages);
  }
{code}

This code is called by the DN coordinating the block recovery. In the above 
case, it is possible for none of the rState (reported by DNs with copies of the 
replica being recovered) to match the bestState. This can either be caused by 
faulty DN code or stale/modified/corrupted files on DN. When this happens the 
DN will end up reporting the minLengh of Long.MAX_VALUE.

Unfortunately there is no check on the NN for replica length. See 
FSNamesystem.java:
{code:java}
  void commitBlockSynchronization(ExtendedBlock oldBlock,
      long newgenerationstamp, long newlength,
      boolean closeFile, boolean deleteblock, DatanodeID[] newtargets,
      String[] newtargetstorages) throws IOException {
…

      if (deleteblock) {
        Block blockToDel = ExtendedBlock.getLocalBlock(oldBlock);
        boolean remove = iFile.removeLastBlock(blockToDel) != null;
        if (remove) {
          blockManager.removeBlock(storedBlock);
        }
      } else {
        // update last block
        if(!copyTruncate) {
          storedBlock.setGenerationStamp(newgenerationstamp);
          
          //>>>> XXX block length is updated without any check <<<<//
          storedBlock.setNumBytes(newlength);
        }
…
    if (closeFile) {
      LOG.info("commitBlockSynchronization(oldBlock=" + oldBlock
          + ", file=" + src
          + (copyTruncate ? ", newBlock=" + truncatedBlock
              : ", newgenerationstamp=" + newgenerationstamp)
          + ", newlength=" + newlength
          + ", newtargets=" + Arrays.asList(newtargets) + ") successful");
    } else {
      LOG.info("commitBlockSynchronization(" + oldBlock + ") successful");
    }
  }
{code}

After this point the block length becomes Long.MAX_VALUE. Any subsequent block 
report (even with correct length) will cause the block to be marked as 
corrupted. Since this is block could be the last block of the file. If this 
happens and the client goes away, NN won’t be able to recover the lease and 
close the file because the last block is under-replicated.

I believe we need to have a sanity check for block size on both DN and NN to 
prevent such case from happening.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to