Summary: clm: avoid stale node down processing and unexpected track callback
[#1120]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1120
Peer Reviewer(s): HansN, RameshB
Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>>
Affected branch(es): opensaf-4.3.x and above
Development branch: <<IF ANY GIVE THE REPO URL>>
--------------------------------
Impacted area Impact y/n
--------------------------------
Docs n
Build system n
RPM/packaging n
Configuration files n
Startup scripts n
SAF services y
OpenSAF services n
Core libraries n
Samples n
Tests n
Other n
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
changeset fdc4fdc114d38917ffa25f47c102011e10a8cdd4
Author: Mathivanan N.P.<mathi.naic...@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 20:07:23 -0400
clm: avoid stale node down processing and unexpected track callback
[#1120]
There is a possiblity that the checkpointing message for a NODE_DOWN
reaches
the STANDBY first, i.e. before the MDS delivers the NODE_DOWN event the
the
standby. This can result in stale node_down record getting stored in the
node_down list which is a designated list for processing of node downs
that
occur during role change from standby to active. The patch introduces a
variable that checks whether the checkpoint event for node_down has
arrived
first, followed by a check during role change to ignore such stale
events.
Thanks to HansN for suggesting the possibility of this theory. This is an
extremely
rare scenario.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
osaf/services/saf/clmsv/clms/clms_cb.h | 6 ++++++
osaf/services/saf/clmsv/clms/clms_evt.c | 48
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
Trigger random reboots of payloads. Follow these events with switchovers &
failovers.
There should not be any unrelated track callbacks being generated.
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
Same as above.
At this point of time, i havenot been able to simulate the scenario.
My bigger interest is to protecting regression also. The fix is rather simple
as well.
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack from HansN or Ramesh.
Arch Built Started Linux distro
-------------------------------------------
mips n n
mips64 n n
x86 n n
x86_64 y y
powerpc n n
powerpc64 n n
Reviewer Checklist:
-------------------
[Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!]
Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries):
___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries
that need proper data filled in.
___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push.
___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header
___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable.
___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text.
___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits.
___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files
(i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc)
___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests.
Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing.
___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed.
___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes
like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs.
___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other
cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits.
___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is
too much content into a single commit.
___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc)
___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent;
Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled.
___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded
commits, or place in a public tree for a pull.
___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication
of what has changed between each re-send.
___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the
comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review.
___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc)
___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the
the threaded patch review.
___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results
for in-service upgradability test.
___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series
do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
