Re: [Netconf] Is there a problem with confirmed commits?

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

Dear Jonathan,

can you please explain how we get into a race condition? What is the
sequence of actions the clients involved have to go through to arrive
at a race?

/js

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 02:47:14PM +0000, Jonathan Hansford wrote:
> RFC 6241, Section 8.2.4.1 states, 'If the running or candidate
> configuration is currently locked by a different session, the <commit>
> operation MUST fail with an <error-tag> value of "in-use".' So if the
> new client acquires a lock on <candidate>, the original client cannot
> <commit> to <running>. So that fixes one of the issues below.
> 
> Section 8.3.5.2 states, 'When a client fails with outstanding changes to
> the candidate configuration, recovery can be difficult.  To facilitate
> easy recovery, any outstanding changes are discarded when the lock is
> released, whether explicitly with the <unlock> operation or implicitly
> from session failure.' So this means <candidate> would revert. Section
> 8.4.1 also states, 'If the device reboots for any reason before the
> confirm timeout expires, the server MUST restore the configuration to
> its state before the confirmed commit was issued.' However, earlier in
> Section 8.4.1 it states, 'If the session issuing the confirmed commit is
> terminated for any reason before the confirm timeout expires, the server
> MUST restore the configuration to its state before the confirmed commit
> was issued, unless the confirmed commit also included a <persist>
> element.', Section 8.4.5.1 states the persist parameter makes 'the
> confirmed commit survive a session termination, and set a token on the
> ongoing confirmed commit' and its description in Appendix C states,
> 'This parameter is used to make a confirmed commit persistent.  A
> persistent confirmed commit is not aborted if the NETCONF session
> terminates.  The only way to abort a persistent confirmed commit is to
> let the timer expire, or to use the <cancel-commit> operation.'
> 
> So it is the persist-id that is the cause of all the problems, not just
> the use of confirmed commit as I previously stated. But is there a way
> to resolve the outstanding issues around the use of the persist-id?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Jonathan Hansford" <[e-mail]>
> To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 14/01/2019 12:50:38
> Subject: [Netconf] Is there a problem with confirmed commits?
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > No one seems to be responding to my email and proposed erratum around
> > the subject of confirmed commits (apart from Martin), but I would
> > really like to know it I am missing something here. As far as I can
> > tell, session termination during a confirmed commit leads to
> > unpredictable behaviour and I would like to know whether anyone is
> > using confirmed commits and how (if at all) they address the issues
> > outlined below. My assumptions are that locks are used and
> > :writable-running is not supported.
> > 
> > If the <candidate> and <running> configuration datastores are locked to
> > prevent concurrent access, and a confirmed commit sequence is
> > interrupted by the session terminating, the locks will automatically be
> > released but the server MUST NOT accept a lock on <running> from any
> > session if another session has an ongoing confirmed <commit>.
> > Consequently, after session termination no client can acquire a <lock>
> > on <running>, not even the one that initiated the confirmed <commit>,
> > until after the confirmed <commit> has timed out. However, if the
> > confirmed <commit> included the <persist> parameter, the original
> > client could still issue a <commit> using the persist-id to complete
> > the sequence prior to the timeout, even without a lock.
> > 
> > Of course, the problem now is the race for the new lock on <candidate>.
> > If the original client is successful then all is good. But if a new
> > client locks <candidate> before the timeout on the confirmed commit,
> > whether or not they precede <lock> with <discard-changes>, <candidate>
> > will be the same as <running> and the new client will pick up
> > everything from the previous session. However, the client won’t be able
> > to lock <running> until after the timeout, at which point <running>
> > reverts but <candidate> still represents the previous session. If the
> > client tries to lock <candidate> after the timeout, <running> will have
> > reverted and the lock will only be granted after a <discard-changes>
> > which will cause the <candidate> to revert. So, depending on when the
> > lock on <candidate> occurs relative to the confirmed commit timeout,
> > the client could be editing <candidate> in one of two states. Further,
> > before the timeout on the confirmed commit, even if the new client has
> > locked candidate, the original client could still issue a confirming
> > commit (they don’t need a lock on <candidate> to do so) which would
> > persistently commit any edits made by the new client. NOTE: it is not
> > the use of the persist-id that introduces this behaviour; a new client
> > would have the same problem even if a confirmed commit was not intended
> > to persist beyond a session termination.
> > 
> > If the server also supports the :startup capability then, if the
> > session termination was due to the server rebooting, the behaviour
> > above would be further complicated by <running> now containing the
> > configuration from the <startup> configuration datastore.
> > 
> > Am I right?
> > 
> > Jonathan
> > 
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Avast logo
> > <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
> > 				This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
> > software.
> > www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
> > 
> > 
> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf


-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>