Concurrent dropping of a file has problems when drop --from is
used. (Also when the assistant or sync --content decided to drop from a
remote.)
> Now [[fixed|done]] --[[Joey]]
[[!toc]]
# refresher
First, let's remember how it works in the case where we're just dropping
from 2 repos concurrently. git-annex uses locking to detect and prevent
data loss:
Two repos, each with a file:
A (has)
B (has)
A wants from drop from A B wants to drop from B
A locks it B locks it
A checks if B has it B checks if A has it
(does, but locked, so fails) (does, but locked, so fails)
A fails to drop it B fails to drop it
The two processes are racing, so there are other orderings to
consider, for example:
A wants from drop from A B wants to drop from B
A locks it
A checks if B has it (succeeds)
A drops it from A B locks it
B checks if A has it (fails)
B fails to drop it
Which is also ok.
A wants from drop from A B wants to drop from B
A locks it
A checks if B has it (succeeds)
B locks it
B checks if A has it
(does, but locked, so fails)
A drops it B fails to drop it
Yay, still ok.
Locking works in those cases to prevent concurrent dropping of a file.
# the bug
But, when drop --from is used, the locking doesn't work:
Two repos, each with a file:
A (has)
B (has)
A wants to drop from B B wants to drop from A
A checks to see if A has it (succeeds) B checks to see if B has it (succeeds)
A tells B to drop it B tells A to drop it
B locks it, drops it A locks it, drops it
No more copies remain!
Verified this one in the wild (adding an appropriate sleep to force the
race).
Best fix here seems to be for A to lock the content on A
as part of its check of numcopies, and keep it locked
while it's asking B to drop it. Then when B tells A to drop it,
it'll be locked and that'll fail (and vice-versa).
> Done, and verified the fix works in this situation.
# the bug part 2
Three repos; C might be a special remote, so w/o its own locking:
A C (has)
B (has)
A wants to drop from C B wants to drop from B
B locks it
A checks if B has it B checks if C has it (does)
(does, but locked, so fails) B drops it
Copy remains in C. But, what if the race goes the other way?
A wants to drop from C B wants to drop from B
A checks if B has it (succeeds)
A drops it from C B locks it
B checks if C has it (does not)
So ok, but then:
A wants to drop from C B wants to drop from B
A checks if B has it (succeeds)
B locks it
B checks if C has it (does)
A drops it from C B drops it from B
No more copies remain!
To fix this, seems that A should not just check if B has it, but lock
the content on B and keep it locked while A is dropping from C.
This would prevent B dropping the content from itself while A is in the
process of dropping from C.
That would mean replacing the call to `git-annex-shell inannex`
with a new command that locks the content.
Note that this is analgous to the fix above; in both cases
the change is from checking if content is in a location, to locking it in
that location while performing a drop from another location.
> Done, and verified the fix works in this situation.
# the bug part 3 (where it gets really nasty)
4 repos; C and D might be special remotes, so w/o their own locking:
A C (has)
B D (has)
B wants to drop from C A wants to drop from D
B checks if D has it (does) A checks if C has it (does)
B drops from C A drops from D
No more copies remain!
How do we get locking in this case?
Adding locking to C and D is not a general option, because special remotes
are dumb key/value stores; they may have no locking operations.
## a solution: remote locking
What could be done is, change from checking if the remote has content, to
trying to lock it there. If the remote doesn't support locking, it can't
be guaranteed to have a copy. Require N locked copies for a drop to
succeed.
So, drop --from would no longer be supported in these configurations.
To drop the content from C, B would have to --force the drop, or move the
content from C to B, and then drop it from B.
### impact when using assistant/sync --content
Need to consider whether this might cause currently working topologies
with the assistant/sync --content to no longer work. Eg, might content
pile up in a transfer remote?
> The assistant checks after any transfer of an object if it should drop
> it from anywhere. So, it gets/puts, and later drops.
> Similarly, for sync --content, it first gets, then puts, and finally drops.
> When dropping an object from remotes(s) + local, in `handleDropsFrom`,
> it drops from local first. So, this would cause content pile-up unless
> changed.
>
> Also, when numcopies > 1, a toplogy like
> `A(transfer) -- B(client) -- specials(backup)` would never be able to drop
> the file from A, because the specials don't support locking and it can't
> guarantee the content will remain on them.
>
> One solution might be to make sync --content/the assistant generate
> move operations, which can then ignore numcopies (like `move` does).
> So, move from A to B and then copy to the specials.
>
> Using moves does lead to a decrease in robustness. For example, in
> the topology `A(transfer) -- B(client) -- C (backup)`, with numcopies=2,
> and C intermittently connected, the current
> behavior with sync --content/assistant is for an object to reach B
> and then later C, and only then be removed from A.
> If moves were used, the object moves from A to B, and so there's only
> 1 copy instead of the 2 as before, in the interim until C gets connected.
## a solution: minimal remote locking
This avoids needing to special case moves, and has 2 parts.
### to drop from remote
Instead of requiring N locked copies of content when dropping,
require only 1 locked copy (either the local copy, or a git remote that
can be locked remotely). Check that content is on the other N-1
remotes w/o requiring locking (but use it if the remote supports locking).
Unlike using moves, this does not decrease robustness, most of the time;
barring the kind of race this bug is about, numcopies behaves as desired.
When there is a race, some of the non-locked copies might be removed,
dipping below numcopies, but the 1 locked copy remains, so the data is
never entirely lost.
Dipping below desired numcopies in an unusual race condition, and then
doing extra work later to recover may be good enough.
> Implemented, and I've now verified this solves the case above.
> Indeed, neither drop succeeds, because no copy can be locked.
### to drop from local repo
When dropping an object from the local repo, lock it for drop,
and then verify that N remotes have a copy
(without requiring locking on special remotes).
So, this is done exactly as git-annex already does it.
Like dropping from a remote, this can dip below numcopies in a race
condition involving special remotes.
But, it's crucial that, despite the lack of locking of
content on special remotes, which may be the last copy,
the last copy never be removed in a race. Is this the case?
We can prove that the last copy is never removed
by considering shapes of networks.
1. Networks only connected by single special
remotes, and not by git-git repo connections. Such networks are
essentially a collection of disconnected smaller networks, each
of the form `R--S`
2. Like 1, but with more special remotes. `S1--R--S2` etc.
3. More complicated (and less unusal) are networks with git-git
repo connections, and no cycles.
These can have arbitrary special remotes connected in too.
4. Finally, there can be a cycle of git-git connections.
The overall network may be larger and more complicated, but we need only
concern ourselves with the subset that has a particular object
or is directly connected to that subset; the rest is not relevant.
So, if we can prove local repo dropping is safe in each of these cases,
it follows it's safe for arbitrarily complicated networks.
Case 1:
2 essentially disconnected networks, R1--S and R2--S
R1 (has) S (has)
R1
R1 wants to drop its local copy R2 wants to move from S
R1 locks its copy for drop R2 copies from S
R1 checks that S has a copy R2 locks its copy
R1 drops its local copy R2 drops from S
R1 expected S to have the copy, and due to a race with R2,
S no longer had the copy it expected. But, this is not actually
a problem, because the copy moved to R2 and so still exists.
So, this is ok!
Case 2:
2 essentially disconnected networks, S1--R1--S2 and S1--R2--S2
R1(has) S1 (has)
R2(has) S2 (has)
R1 wants to move from S1 to S2 R2 wants to move from S2 to S1
R1 locks its copy R2 locks its copy
R1 checks that S2 has a copy R2 checks that S1 has a copy
R1 drops from S1 R2 drops from S2
R1 and R2 end up each with a copy still, so this is ok,
despite S1 and S2 lacking a copy.
If R1/R2 had not had a local copy, they could not have done a remote drop.
(Adding more special remotes shouldn't change how this works.)
Case 3:
3 repos; B has A and C as remotes; A has C as remote; C is special remote.
A (has) C (has)
B
B wants to drop from C A wants to drop from A
B locks it on A
B drops from C A locks it on A for drop
(fails; locked by B)
B drops from C A keeps its copy
ok!
or, racing the other way
B wants to drop from C A wants to drop from A
A locks it on A for drop
B locks it on A
(fails; locked by A)
C keeps its copy A drops its copy
ok!
Case 4:
But, what if we have a cycle? The above case 3 also works if B and A are in a
cycle, but what about a larger cycle?
Well, a cycle necessarily involves only git repos, not special remotes.
Any special remote can't be part of a cycle, because a special remote
does not have remotes itself.
As the remotes in the cycle are not special remotes, locking is done
of content on remotes when dropping it from local or another remote.
This locking ensures that even with a cycle, we're ok. For example:
4 repos; D is special remote w/o its own locking, and the rest are git
repos. A has remotes B,D; B has remotes C,D; C has remotes A,D
A (has) D
B (has)
C (has)
A wants to drop from A B wants to drop from B C wants to drop from C
A locks it on A for drop B locks it on B for drop C locks it on C for drop
A locks it on B B locks it on C C locks it on A
(fails; locked by B) (fails; locked by C) (fails; locked by A)
Which is fine! But, check races..
A wants to drop from A B wants to drop from B C wants to drop from C
A locks it on A for drop C locks it on C for drop
A locks it on B (succeeds) C locks it on A
B locks it on B for drop (fails; locked by A)
(fails; locked by A)
A drops B keeps C keeps
It can race other ways, but they all work out the same way essentially,
due to the locking.
# the bug, with moves
`git annex move --from remote` is the same as a copy followed by drop --from,
so the same bug can occur then.
But, the implementation differs from Command.Drop, so will also
need some changes.
Command.Move.toPerform already locks local content for removal before
removing it, of course. So, that will interoperate fine with
concurrent drops/moves. Seems fine as-is.
Command.Move.fromPerform simply needs to lock the local content
in place before dropping it from the remote. This satisfies the need
for 1 locked copy when dropping from a remote, and so is sufficent to
fix the bug.
> done