[jira] [Updated] (CASSANDRA-16807) Weak visibility guarantees of Accumulator lead to failed assertions during digest comparison

["Caleb Rackliffe (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org>]

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-16807?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Caleb Rackliffe updated CASSANDRA-16807:
----------------------------------------
     Bug Category: Parent values: Correctness(12982)Level 1 values: Transient Incorrect Response(12987)
       Complexity: Normal
    Discovered By: Fuzz Test
    Fix Version/s: 4.x
                   4.0.x
         Severity: Critical
           Status: Open  (was: Triage Needed)

There is perhaps a question of whether to fix this in 3.x, but the exact nature of the fix may be a little different, given the refactoring that happened in 4.0. Perhaps a bigger question than that is whether this warrants inclusion in 4.0.0, but given it probably isn't entirely a regression from 3.x (i.e. the assertion is new in 4.0.0 but not the underlying issue), I could see a case for it not blocking 4.0 GA.

> Weak visibility guarantees of Accumulator lead to failed assertions during digest comparison
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-16807
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-16807
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Consistency/Coordination
>            Reporter: Caleb Rackliffe
>            Assignee: Caleb Rackliffe
>            Priority: Normal
>             Fix For: 4.0.x, 4.x
>
>
> This problem could manifest on all versions, beginning on at least 3.0, but I’ll focus on the way it manifests in 4.0 here.
> In what now seems like a wise move, CASSANDRA-16097 added an assertion to {{DigestResolver#responseMatch()}} that ensures the responses snapshot has at least one visible elements to compare (although of course only one element trivially cannot generate a mismatch and short-circuits immediately). However, at the point {{ReadCallback#onResponse()}} signals the waiting resolver, there is no guarantee that the size of the generated snapshot of the responses {{Accumulator}} is non-zero, or perhaps more worryingly, at least equal to the number of blocked-for responses. This seems to be a consequence of the documented weak visibility guarantees on {{Accumulator#add()}}. In short, if there are concurrent invocations of add(), is it not guaranteed that there is any visible size change after any one of them return, but only after all complete.
> The particular exception looks something like this:
> {noformat}
> java.lang.AssertionError: Attempted response match comparison while no responses have been received.
> 	at org.apache.cassandra.service.reads.DigestResolver.responsesMatch(DigestResolver.java:110)
> 	at org.apache.cassandra.service.reads.AbstractReadExecutor.awaitResponses(AbstractReadExecutor.java:393)
> 	at org.apache.cassandra.service.StorageProxy.fetchRows(StorageProxy.java:2150)
> 	at org.apache.cassandra.service.StorageProxy.readRegular(StorageProxy.java:1979)
> 	at org.apache.cassandra.service.StorageProxy.read(StorageProxy.java:1882)
> 	at org.apache.cassandra.db.SinglePartitionReadCommand$Group.execute(SinglePartitionReadCommand.java:1121)
> 	at org.apache.cassandra.cql3.statements.SelectStatement.execute(SelectStatement.java:296)
> 	at org.apache.cassandra.cql3.statements.SelectStatement.execute(SelectStatement.java:248)
> 	at org.apache.cassandra.cql3.statements.SelectStatement.execute(SelectStatement.java:90)
> {noformat}
> It’s possible to reproduce this on simple single-partition reads without any short-read protection or replica filtering protection. I’ve also been able to reproduce this synthetically with a unit test on {{ReadCallback}}.
> It seems like the most straightforward way to fix this would be to avoid signaling in {{ReadCallback#onResponse()}} until the visible size of the accumulator is at least the number of received responses. In most cases, this is trivially true, and our signaling behavior won’t change at all. In the very rare case that there are two (or more) concurrent calls to {{onResponse()}}, the second (or last) will signal, and having one more response than we strictly need should have no negative side effects. (We don’t seem to make any strict assertions about having exactly the number of required responses, only that we have enough.)



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commits-help@cassandra.apache.org