d3e1a3619f
git-annex-shell inannex now returns always 0, 1, or 100 (the last when it's unclear if content is currently in the index due to it currently being moved or dropped). (Actual locking code still not yet written.)
79 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
79 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
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 failure
|
|
needs to be distinguishable from "not in annex".
|
|
|
|
> 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.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
drop --from could also cycle. Locking should fix.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
This is why it's important for inannex to fail in a way that is
|
|
distinguishable from "not in annex". Otherwise, move --to
|
|
would see the cycle as the remote not having content, and try to
|
|
redundantly send it, drop it locally, and still race.
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
fail. NB: If the content is not locally present, don't take the lock.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
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.
|