Skip to content

util: fix race condition in WaitForFile#3162

Merged
openshift-merge-robot merged 2 commits into
containers:masterfrom
giuseppe:fix-hang-waitforfile
May 20, 2019
Merged

util: fix race condition in WaitForFile#3162
openshift-merge-robot merged 2 commits into
containers:masterfrom
giuseppe:fix-hang-waitforfile

Conversation

@giuseppe
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@giuseppe giuseppe commented May 20, 2019

enable polling also when using inotify. It is generally useful to
have it as under high load inotify can lose notifications. It also
solves a race condition where the file is created while the watcher
is configured and it'd wait until the timeout and fail.

Closes: #2942

Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano gscrivan@redhat.com

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

openshift-ci-robot commented May 20, 2019

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: giuseppe

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. size/M labels May 20, 2019
This was referenced May 20, 2019
Closed
Closed
@AkihiroSuda
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

AkihiroSuda commented May 20, 2019

Is this for slirp4netns API socket? slirp4netns --ready-fd does not work?

@giuseppe
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

giuseppe commented May 20, 2019

Is this for slirp4netns API socket? slirp4netns --ready-fd does not work?

IIRC, the ready-fd is written by the slirp4netns child while the api socket is managed by the parent so we cannot assume it is ready when ready-fd returned

@rhatdan
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

rhatdan commented May 20, 2019

LGTM
@mheon @vrothberg @baude @TomSweeneyRedHat PTAL

vrothberg
vrothberg reviewed May 20, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@vrothberg vrothberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we can simplify the code with using case <- time.After(...) in line 129. Then we could delete lines 108-122 entirely.

@giuseppe
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

giuseppe commented May 20, 2019

I think we can simplify the code with using case <- time.After(...) in line 129. Then we could delete lines 108-122 entirely.

yes good point. I'll change it

TomSweeneyRedHat
TomSweeneyRedHat reviewed May 20, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@TomSweeneyRedHat TomSweeneyRedHat left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM assuming happy tests

@giuseppe
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

giuseppe commented May 20, 2019

/hold

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label May 20, 2019
@AkihiroSuda AkihiroSuda mentioned this pull request May 20, 2019
Closed
@AkihiroSuda
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

AkihiroSuda commented May 20, 2019

we cannot assume it is ready when ready-fd returned

I feel this is a bug. I opened rootless-containers/slirp4netns#90

@giuseppe giuseppe force-pushed the fix-hang-waitforfile branch from 82f9540 to 9aba820 Compare May 20, 2019 12:15
@giuseppe
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

giuseppe commented May 20, 2019

/hold cancel

Pushed a new version that simplifies it even further and doesn't use any go routine

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label May 20, 2019
vrothberg
vrothberg reviewed May 20, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@vrothberg vrothberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, thanks @giuseppe

rhatdan
rhatdan reviewed May 20, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment thread libpod/util.go Outdated
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@rhatdan rhatdan May 20, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we be checking if os.IsNotExist(err) and blowing up if the err is something else?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@giuseppe giuseppe May 20, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I had moved the existing code, but yes that is better. I've pushed a new version where it checks the error type.

@giuseppe giuseppe force-pushed the fix-hang-waitforfile branch from 9aba820 to a6cc93c Compare May 20, 2019 12:47
@rhatdan
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

rhatdan commented May 20, 2019

LGTM,
Lets merge when tests pass

@mheon
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

mheon commented May 20, 2019

Tests are very angry

@mheon
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

mheon commented May 20, 2019

Looks like exec broke

@giuseppe giuseppe force-pushed the fix-hang-waitforfile branch 3 times, most recently from 541f7f7 to 390f29c Compare May 20, 2019 15:52
@giuseppe
util: fix race condition in WaitForFile
57e7814 
enable polling also when using inotify.  It is generally useful to
have it as under high load inotify can lose notifications.  It also
solves a race condition where the file is created while the watcher
is configured and it'd wait until the timeout and fail.

Closes: containers#2942

Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>
@giuseppe
container: move channel close to its writer
f86bb56 
let the writer of the channel close it.

Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>
@giuseppe giuseppe force-pushed the fix-hang-waitforfile branch from 390f29c to f86bb56 Compare May 20, 2019 17:41
@giuseppe
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

giuseppe commented May 20, 2019

@mheon tests are passing now

@rhatdan
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

rhatdan commented May 20, 2019

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 20, 2019
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit a791242 into containers:master May 20, 2019
@rh-atomic-bot rh-atomic-bot mentioned this pull request May 20, 2019
Merged
7 tasks
@edsantiago edsantiago mentioned this pull request Jun 18, 2020
Closed
@github-actions github-actions Bot added the locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. label Sep 26, 2023
@github-actions github-actions Bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 26, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Reviewers

@rhatdan rhatdan rhatdan left review comments

@TomSweeneyRedHat TomSweeneyRedHat TomSweeneyRedHat left review comments

@mheon mheon Awaiting requested review from mheon

+1 more reviewer

@vrothberg vrothberg vrothberg left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

@rhatdan rhatdan

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Rootless podman won't start when exposing ports

8 participants

@giuseppe @openshift-ci-robot @AkihiroSuda @rhatdan @mheon @vrothberg @TomSweeneyRedHat @openshift-merge-robot