The idea is that upon a merge of the git-annex branch, or a commit to
the git-annex branch, the reposize database will be updated. So it
should always accurately reflect the location log sizes, but it will
often be behind the actual current sizes.
Annex.reposizes will start with the value from the database, and get
updated with each transfer, so it will reflect a process's best
understanding of the current sizes.
When there are multiple processes all transferring to the same repo,
Annex.reposize will not reflect transfers made by the other processes
since the current process started. So when using balanced preferred
content, it may make suboptimal choices, including trying to transfer
content to the repo when another process has already filled it up.
But this is the same as if there are multiple processes running on
ifferent machines, so is acceptable. The reposize will eventually
get an accurate value reflecting changes made by other processes or in
other repos.
This deals with the possible security problem that someone could make an
unusually low UUID and generate keys that are all constructed to hash to
a number that, mod the number of repositories in the group, == 0.
So balanced preferred content would always put those keys in the
repository with the low UUID as long as the group contains the
number of repositories that the attacker anticipated.
Presumably the attacker than holds the data for ransom? Dunno.
Anyway, the partial solution is to use HMAC (sha256) with all the UUIDs
combined together as the "secret", and the key as the "message". Now any
change in the set of UUIDs in a group will invalidate the attacker's
constructed keys from hashing to anything in particular.
Given that there are plenty of other things someone can do if they can
write to the repository -- including modifying preferred content so only
their repository wants files, and numcopies so other repositories drom
them -- this seems like safeguard enough.
Note that, in balancedPicker, combineduuids is memoized.
This all works fine. But it doesn't check repository sizes yet, and
without repository size checking, once a repository gets full, there
will be no other repository that will want its files.
Use of sha2 seems unncessary, probably alder2 or md5 or crc would have
been enough. Possibly just summing up the bytes of the key mod the number
of repositories would have sufficed. But sha2 is there, and probably
hardware accellerated. I doubt very much there is any security benefit
to using it though. If someone wants to construct a key that will be
balanced onto a given repository, sha2 is certianly not going to stop
them.
This removes versionedExport, which was only used by the S3 special
remote. Instead, versionedexport=yes is a common way for remotes to
indicate that they are versioned.
This handles the workflow where the branch is first pushed to the proxy,
and then files in the exported tree are later are copied to the proxied remote.
Turns out that the way the export log is structured, nothing needs
to be done to finalize the export once the last key is sent to it. Which
is great because that would have been a lot of complication. On
receiving the push, Command.Export runs and calls recordExportBeginning,
does as much as it can to update the export with the files currently
on it, and then calls recordExportUnderway. At that point, the
export.log records the export as "complete", but it's not really. And
that's fine. The same happens when using `git-annex export` when some
files are not available to send. Other repositories that have
access to the special remote can already retrieve files from it. As
the missing files get copied to the exported remote, all that needs
to be done is record each in the export db.
At this point, proxying to exporttree=yes annexobjects=yes special remotes
is fully working. Except for in the case where multiple files in the
tree use the same key, and the files are sent to the proxied remote
before pushing the tree.
It seems that even special remotes without annexobjects=yes will work if
used with the workflow where the git-annex branch is pushed before
copying files. But not with the `git-annex push` workflow.
The file corruption consists of each chunk of the file being duplicated.
Since chunks are typically a fixed size, it would certianly be possible
to get from a corrupted file back to the original file. But this is still
bad data loss.
Reversion was in commit fcc052bed8.
Luckily that did not make the most recent release.
It works when using git-annex sync/push/assist, or when manually sending
all content to the proxied remote before pushing to the proxy remote.
But when the push comes before the content is sent, sending content does
not update the exported tree.
This avoids needing to re-upload the file again to get it to the
annexobjects location, which git-annex sync was doing when it was
preferred content.
If the file is not preferred content, sync will drop it from the
annexobjects location.
If the file has been deleted from the tree, it will remain in the
annexobjects location until an unused/dropunused pass is done.
This fixes a problem with datalad's test suite, where loading the cluster
log happened to cause the git-annex branch commits to take a different
shape, with an additional commit.
It's also faster though, since many commands don't need the cluster log.
Just fill Annex.clusters with a thunk.
Sponsored-by: the NIH-funded NICEMAN (ReproNim TR&D3) project
While usually uploading to a special remote does not verify the content,
the content in a repository is assumed to be valid, and there is no trust
boundary. But with a proxied special remote, there may be users who are
allowed to store objects, but are not really trusted.
Another way to look at this is it's the equivilant of git-annex-shell
checking the hash of received data, which it does (see StoreContent
implementation).
As seen in commit 770aac97a7, a cluster
relies accurate location logs. If long-running processes are serving a
cluster, and one process puts a file, the other process needs to see
what nodes it was stored on when checking if the file is present.
Only invalidate a just-written file in the cache, not the whole cache.
This will avoid the possibly performance impact of cache invalidation
mentioned in commit 770aac97a7
This fixes a problem when git-annex testremote is run against a cluster
accessed via the http server. Annex.Cluster uses the location log
to find nodes that contain a key when checking if the key is present or getting
it. Just after a key was stored to a cluster node, reading the location log
was not getting the UUID of that node.
Apparently the Annex action that wrote to the location log, and the one
that read from it were run with two different Annex states. The http server
does use several different Annex threads.
BranchState was part of the AnnexState, and so two threads could have
different BranchStates.
Moved BranchState to the AnnexRead, so all threads will see the common state.
This might possibly impact performance. If one thread is writing changes to the
branch, and another thread is reading from the branch, the writing thread will
now invalidate the BranchState's cache, which will cause the reading thread to
need to do extra work. But correctness is surely more important. If did is
found to have impacted performance, it could probably be dealt with by doing
smarter BranchState cache invalidation.
Another way this might impact performance is that the BranchState has a small
cache. If several threads were reading from the branch and relying on the value
they just read still being in the case, now a cache miss will be more likely.
Increasing the BranchState cache to the number of jobs might be a good
idea to amelorate that. But the cache is currently an innefficient list,
so making it large would need changes to the data types.
(Commit 4304f1b6ae dealt with a follow-on
effect of the bug fixed here.)
Wired it up and it seems to basically work, although the test suite is
not fully passing.
Note that --jobs currently gets multiplied by the number of nodes in the
cluster, which is probably not good.
proxyRequest was treating UNLOCKCONTENT as a separate request.
That made it possible for there to be two different connections to the
proxied remote, with LOCKCONTENT being sent to one, and UNLOCKCONTENT
to the other one. A protocol error.
git-annex testremote now passes against a http proxied remote.
There was an annex worker thread that did not get stopped.
It was stuck in ReceiveMessage from the P2PHandleTMVar.
Fixed by making P2PHandleTMVar closeable.
In serveGet, releaseP2PConnection has to come first, else the
annexworker may not shut down, if it's waiting to read from it.
In proxyConnection, call closeRemoteSide in order to wait for the ssh
process (for example).
The proxy always checks the protocol version of a remote before talking
to it in a version-specific way, so the protocol version in the ProxyParams
is the client's protocol version. The remote will always be at the same or
an older protocol version than the client.
Note that in relayDATAFinish, when the client is at protocol version 0,
the remote must thus be as well, and that's why its version is not
checked in the case for that.
With that clarified, it's evident that, in P2P.Http.State, there's no
need to look at the proxied remote's protocol version at all.
Refactored git-annex-shell code so this can use checkCanProxy'.
At this point all that remains is opening a proxy connection,
and using a proxy connection.
It still needs to be offset, otherwise on resume from 80% it will
display 1%..20%.
Seems that this bug must have affected P2P.Annex as well where it runs
this code, but apparently it didn't affect it in a very user-visible
way. Maybe the transfer log file was updated incorrectly?
Made the data-length header required even for v0. This simplifies the
implementation, and doesn't preclude extra verification being done for
v0.
The connectionWaitVar is an ugly hack. In servePut, nothing waits
on the waitvar, and I could not find a good way to make anything wait on
it.
This came down to SendBytes waiting on the waitv. Nothing ever filled
it.
Only Annex.Proxy needs the waitv, and it handles filling it. So make it
optional.
For clusters, the timestamps have to be translated, since each node can
have its own idea about what time it is. To translate a timestamp, the
proxy remembers what time it asked the node for a timestamp in
GETTIMESTAMP, and applies the delta as an offset in REMOVE-BEFORE.
This does mean that a remove from a cluster has to call GETTIMESTAMP on
every node before dropping from nodes. Not very efficient. Although
currently it tries to drop from every single node anyway, which is also
not very efficient.
I thought about caching the GETTIMESTAMP from the nodes on the first
call. That would improve efficiency. But, since monotonic clocks on
!Linux don't advance when the computer is suspended, consider what might
happen if one node was suspended for a while, then came back. Its
monotonic timestamp would end up behind where the proxying expects it to
be. Would that result in removing when it shouldn't, or refusing to
remove when it should? Have not thought it through. Either way, a
cluster behaving strangly for an extended period of time because one
of its nodes was briefly asleep doesn't seem like good behavior.
Added Maybe POSIXTime to SafeDropProof, which gets set when the proof is
based on a LockedCopy. If there are several LockedCopies, it uses the
closest expiry time. That is not optimal, it may be that the proof
expires based on one LockedCopy but another one has not expired. But
that seems unlikely to really happen, and anyway the user can just
re-run a drop if it fails due to expiry.
Pass the SafeDropProof to removeKey, which is responsible for checking
it for expiry in situations where that could be a problem. Which really
only means in Remote.Git.
Made Remote.Git check expiry when dropping from a local remote.
Checking expiry when dropping from a P2P remote is not yet implemented.
P2P.Protocol.remove has SafeDropProof plumbed through to it for that
purpose.
Fixing the remaining 2 build warnings should complete this work.
Note that the use of a POSIXTime here means that if the clock gets set
forward while git-annex is in the middle of a drop, it may say that
dropping took too long. That seems ok. Less ok is that if the clock gets
turned back a sufficient amount (eg 5 minutes), proof expiry won't be
noticed. It might be better to use the Monotonic clock, but that doesn't
advance when a laptop is suspended, and while there is the linux
Boottime clock, that is not available on other systems. Perhaps a
combination of POSIXTime and the Monotonic clock could detect laptop
suspension and also detect clock being turned back?
There is a potential future flag day where
p2pDefaultLockContentRetentionDuration is not assumed, but is probed
using the P2P protocol, and peers that don't support it can no longer
produce a LockedCopy. Until that happens, when git-annex is
communicating with older peers there is a risk of data loss when
a ssh connection closes during LOCKCONTENT.
This allows lockContentShared to lock content for eg, 10 minutes and
if the process then gets terminated before it can unlock, the content
will remain locked for that amount of time.
The Windows implementation is not yet tested.
In P2P.Annex, a duration of 10 minutes is used. This way, when p2pstdio
or remotedaemon is serving the P2P protocol, and is asked to
LOCKCONTENT, and that process gets killed, the content will not be
subject to deletion. This is not a perfect solution to
doc/todo/P2P_locking_connection_drop_safety.mdwn yet, but it gets most
of the way there, without needing any P2P protocol changes.
This is only done in v10 and higher repositories (or on Windows). It
might be possible to backport it to v8 or earlier, but it would
complicate locking even further, and without a separate lock file, might
be hard. I think that by the time this fix reaches a given user, they
will probably have been running git-annex 10.x long enough that their v8
repositories will have upgraded to v10 after the 1 year wait. And it's
not as if git-annex hasn't already been subject to this problem (though
I have not heard of any data loss caused by it) for 6 years already, so
waiting another fraction of a year on top of however long it takes this
fix to reach users is unlikely to be a problem.
