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

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 8:25 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> For me, a confirmed commit is not complete if it can still timeout.
>
>
It is hard to imagine how a confirmed-commit could be considered complete
if the server is still waiting for the confirming commit.



> /js
>

Andy


>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 04:01:59PM +0000, Jonathan Hansford wrote:
> > I think the text you refer to on page 45 is open to interpretation. If a
> > persistent confirmed commit has occurred then the changes have been
> > committed (albeit in a confirmed commit), and the candidate and running
> > configuration datastores are the same (unless and until the confirmed
> commit
> > times out). The text depends on the definition of 'modified' (and how the
> > server detects it) and 'committed'.
> >
> > ------ Original Message ------
> > From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[e-mail]>
> > To: "Jonathan Hansford" <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: 14/01/2019 15:40:26
> > Subject: Re: [Netconf] Is there a problem with confirmed commits?
> >
> > > It seems the <candidate> datastore should not be allowed to be used as
> > > long as a persistent confirmed commit is still ongoing. I leave it to
> > > Martin to check whether this is said somewhere or an omission.
> > >
> > > In general, an application can't assume that <candidate> contains
> > > anything sensible. Hence, the proper way is to lock <candidate> and
> > > then to make sure it contains something sensible, i.e., issuing a
> > > discard_changes. And I think implementations should not allow an
> > > application to obtain a lock on <candidate> while a commit is active.
> > > The text on page 45 already says:
> > >
> > >       A lock MUST NOT be granted if any of the following conditions is
> > >       true:
> > >
> > >       [...]
> > >
> > >       *  The target configuration is <candidate>, it has already been
> > >          modified, and these changes have not been committed or rolled
> > >          back.
> > >
> > > I think this covers the case of an ongoing but not completed
> > > persistent confirmed commit, no?
> > >
> > > /js
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 03:14:02PM +0000, Jonathan Hansford wrote:
> > > >  If a persistent confirmed commit has not timed out, the running
> > > >  configuration datastore will be the same as the candidate and
> > > >  <discard-changes> won't change its contents. Any edit of candidate
> will be
> > > >  based on the configuration resulting from the persistent confirmed
> commit.
> > > >
> > > >  If the persistent confirmed commit has timed out, the running
> configuration
> > > >  datastore will have reverted and <discard-changes> will change
> candidate.
> > > >  Any edit of candidate in this case will be based on the
> configuration prior
> > > >  to the start of the persistent confirmed commit.
> > > >
> > > >  ------ Original Message ------
> > > >  From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[e-mail]
> >
> > > >  To: "Jonathan Hansford" <[e-mail]>
> > > >  Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> > > >  Sent: 14/01/2019 13:50:56
> > > >  Subject: Re: [Netconf] Is there a problem with confirmed commits?
> > > >
> > > >  > Hi,
> > > >  >
> > > >  > I have not yet understood where you see a problem. In general,
> > > >  > <candidate/> contains arbitrary stuff and hence it is the client's
> > > >  > responsibility to clear any arbitrary stuff found in <candidate/>
> > > >  > after obtaining a lock. If does not really matter whether there
> has
> > > >  > been a failed confirmed commit before or something else. I think
> the
> > > >  > general safe pattern is:
> > > >  >
> > > >  > lock(candidate)
> > > >  > discard_changes()
> > > >  > push_whatever_needed()
> > > >  > commit()
> > > >  > unlock(candidate)
> > > >  >
> > > >  > If you do a confirmed commit and the session disappears, then the
> lock
> > > >  > will disappear as well. But I do not think this creates a race
> > > >  > condition, or I am just not yet seeing it. Perhaps it helps to
> write
> > > >  > down the sequence of actions that leads to a race.
> > > >  >
> > > >  > /js
> > > >  >
> > > >  > On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 12:50:38PM +0000, Jonathan Hansford wrote:
> > > >  > >  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
> > > >  > >
> > > >  > >  ---
> > > >  > >  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/>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> > > Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> > > Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> >
>
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>