2011-11-09 17:34:17 +00:00
|
|
|
drop's verification that a remote still has content can fail
|
|
|
|
if the remote is also dropping the content at the same time. Each
|
|
|
|
repository checks that the other still has the content, and then both
|
|
|
|
drop it. Could also happen with larger cycles of repositories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixing this requires locking. (Well, there are other ways, like moving the
|
|
|
|
content to a holding area when checking if it's safe to drop, but they
|
|
|
|
seem complicated, and would be hard to implement for move --from.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add per-content lock files. An exclusive lock is held on content when
|
|
|
|
it's in the process of being dropped, or moved. The lock is taken
|
|
|
|
nonblocking; if it cannot be obtained, something else is acting on the
|
|
|
|
content and git-annex should refuse to do anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then when checking inannex, try to take a shared lock. Note that to avoid
|
|
|
|
deadlock, this must be a nonblocking lock. If it fails, the status of
|
|
|
|
the content is unknown, so inannex should fail. Note that this needs to be
|
|
|
|
distinguishable from "not in annex".
|
|
|
|
|
2011-11-09 18:32:31 +00:00
|
|
|
> Thinking about these lock files, this would be a lot more files,
|
|
|
|
> and would possibly break some assumptions that everything in
|
|
|
|
> `.git/annex/objects` is a key's content. (Or would need lots more
|
|
|
|
> directories to put the lock files elsewhere.) There would be more
|
|
|
|
> overhead to manage these and have them on disk.
|
|
|
|
>
|
|
|
|
> What if it just locked the actual content file? The obvious limitation
|
|
|
|
> is only content that was already inannex could be locked, but that
|
|
|
|
> happens to be exactly what's needed here; if content is not present,
|
|
|
|
> it's not going to get dropped or moved.
|
|
|
|
>
|
|
|
|
> Of course, if some consumer of a file locked it, then it could prevent it
|
|
|
|
> from being dropped or moved. This could be considered a bug, or a feature. :)
|
|
|
|
>
|
|
|
|
> However, this would mean that such a hypothetical consumer could also
|
|
|
|
> make inannex checks fail.
|
|
|
|
|
2011-11-09 17:34:17 +00:00
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
2011-11-09 20:54:18 +00:00
|
|
|
drop --from could also cycle. Locking should fix.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
2011-11-09 17:34:17 +00:00
|
|
|
move --to can also be included in the cycle, since it can drop data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consider move to a remote that already has the content and
|
|
|
|
is at the same time doing a drop (or a move). The remote
|
|
|
|
verifies the content is present on the movee, and removes its copy.
|
|
|
|
The movee removes its copy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So move --to needs to take the content lock on start. Then the inannex
|
|
|
|
will fail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
move --from is similar. Consider a case where both the local and the remote
|
|
|
|
are doing a move --from. Both have the content, and confirm the other does,
|
|
|
|
via inannex checks. Then both run git-annex-shell dropkey, removing both
|
|
|
|
copies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So move --from needs to take the content lock on start, so the inannex will
|
2011-11-09 18:32:31 +00:00
|
|
|
fail. NB: If the content is not locally present, don't take the lock.
|
2011-11-09 17:34:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another cycle might be running move --to and move --from on the same file,
|
|
|
|
locally. The exclusivity of the content lock solves this, as only one can
|
|
|
|
run at a time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another cycle might involve move --from and drop, both run on the same
|
|
|
|
file, locally. Again, the exclusive lock solves this.
|