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

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

Someone can modify candidate between your discard_changes() and
lock().  I have to check whether lock requires <candidate/> to match
<running/>.

/js

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 04:05:03PM +0000, Jonathan Hansford wrote:
> And maybe a discard_changes before the lock is better behaviour (or is there
> something that prevents that?) to ensure the lock will succeed.
> 
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Robert Wilton" <[e-mail]>
> To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "Jonathan Hansford" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 14/01/2019 15:48:58
> Subject: Re: [Netconf] Is there a problem with confirmed commits?
> 
> > Hi Juergen,
> > 
> > On 14/01/2019 15:40, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > But the text that you quote below states that a client cannot acquire a lock on candidate if it contains any changes.  Doesn't this implies that discard_changes after acquiring the lock should be unnecessary?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Rob
> > 
> > 
> > >   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/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/>