-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
protect against stray snapshot-details without snapshot #70
base: 4.15
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
@rhtyd @sureshanaparti I would like to submit this for upstream 4.15, small fix but very hard to test. What do you think? |
Adds a custom volume storage migration form This fixes #70 Signed-off-by: Rohit Yadav <[email protected]>
@DaanHoogland @rhtyd I was mentioning about this PR: apache#4130 (fixed for service ticket apache#2870). |
@@ -1097,6 +1097,10 @@ public void doInTransactionWithoutResult(TransactionStatus status) { | |||
final List<SnapshotDetailsVO> snapshotList = _snapshotDetailsDao.findDetails(AsyncJob.Constants.MS_ID, Long.toString(msid), false); | |||
for (final SnapshotDetailsVO snapshotDetailsVO : snapshotList) { | |||
SnapshotInfo snapshot = snapshotFactory.getSnapshot(snapshotDetailsVO.getResourceId(), DataStoreRole.Primary); | |||
if (snapshot == null) { | |||
_snapshotDetailsDao.remove(snapshotDetailsVO.getId()); | |||
continue; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@DaanHoogland here the snapshot details is scanned for 'MS_ID' only, and the associated snapshot object (if exists) holding this detail is transitioned to failed/error state. So, I think it is safe to remove detail 'MS_ID' only (not sure if any other detail is being process elsewhere).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ignore my last comment. Above ^^ remove stmt is correct as the record is being removed by details record id, and it is safe.
@@ -87,6 +87,9 @@ public SnapshotInfo getSnapshot(DataObject obj, DataStore store) { | |||
@Override | |||
public SnapshotInfo getSnapshot(long snapshotId, DataStoreRole role) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@DaanHoogland make sure 'null' returned here is checked, wherever this method is called.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note that at line 94/97 null is returned as well. It is called 20 times, not including tests. if the snapshot is null and an SnapshotInfo object is returned with a null snapshot field it will result in runtime exceptions if it is used. I agree that errors may occur in different placec, but not more errors will occur. I'll spend some time researching thos 20 callers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
added two null checks. I think these are superfluent, but they wont hurt.
Description
This PR makes sure no orphaned snapshot details are considered in the cleanup at startup job.
a real solution would be to implement some kind of cascading delete, but as the parent record is "only" marked as removed this would be a bit complicated as a quick fix and also not a clean solution either.
Types of changes
Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity
Feature/Enhancement Scale
Bug Severity
Screenshots (if appropriate):
How Has This Been Tested?