Skip to content

fix(srv/stream): properly remove sessionTool to prevent memory leak #365

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 8, 2025

Conversation

cryo-zd
Copy link
Contributor

@cryo-zd cryo-zd commented Jun 5, 2025

Description

Fix two potential issues in StreamableHTTPServer's func sessionToolsStore that may lead to performance degradation or memory leak over time:

  1. Memory leak risk:
    Previously, when a client session was deleted (via handleDelete), we simply set its entry in sessionToolsStore to nil, but did not remove the key from the internal map. Over time, this could cause the internal map to grow unbounded, especially on long-running servers with many short-lived sessions.
  2. Redundant allocation for unused sessions:
    Even for sessions that never registered/customized any tools, we would still insert a sessionID → nil entry during deletion, which is unnecessary and wasteful.

Fix

  • Added a delete(sessionID string) method to sessionToolsStore that safely removes the key from the internal map.
  • optimize this method using double-checked locking to improve performance in common scenarios where most sessions don't register/customize session tools

Proof
fix1
fix2

Type of Change

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change that fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change that adds functionality)
  • MCP spec compatibility implementation
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • Documentation update
  • Code refactoring (no functional changes)
  • Performance improvement
  • Tests only (no functional changes)
  • Other (please describe):

Checklist

  • My code follows the code style of this project
  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly

MCP Spec Compliance

  • This PR implements a feature defined in the MCP specification
  • Link to relevant spec section: Link text
  • Implementation follows the specification exactly

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes
    • Improved session deletion to ensure all session data is fully removed when a session is deleted.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jun 5, 2025

Walkthrough

The session deletion logic in the StreamableHTTPServer was updated to fully remove session entries from the sessionToolsStore using a new delete(sessionID) method, replacing the previous approach of setting the session's tools map to nil. The new method ensures complete removal with proper locking.

Changes

File(s) Change Summary
server/streamable_http.go Replaced session tools map nullification with a new delete(sessionID) method for full removal; added delete method with locking.

Warning

There were issues while running some tools. Please review the errors and either fix the tool's configuration or disable the tool if it's a critical failure.

🔧 golangci-lint (1.64.8)

Error: you are using a configuration file for golangci-lint v2 with golangci-lint v1: please use golangci-lint v2
Failed executing command with error: you are using a configuration file for golangci-lint v2 with golangci-lint v1: please use golangci-lint v2


📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 97f5bea and 7c15187.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • server/streamable_http.go (2 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
  • server/streamable_http.go
✨ Finishing Touches
  • 📝 Generate Docstrings

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Explain this complex logic.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai explain this code block.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and explain its main purpose.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Support

Need help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate sequence diagram to generate a sequence diagram of the changes in this PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

return
}

s.mu.Lock()
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we could keep code below only and remove code above, delete is an idempotent operation.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@cryo-zd cryo-zd Jun 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

  Sorry for my delayed response — and you’re absolutely right that delete is idempotent and safe even when the key does not exist.
  That said, the reason we added the double-checked locking is because we noticed that most streamableHttpSessions don’t call SetSessionTools() to customize session tools or override global tools, meaning that in many cases the sessionID won’t be present in sessionToolsStore.tools(map) at all. With this in mind, the early RLock check helps us avoid acquiring an exclusive lock unnecessarily, which could reduce write lock contention and context switching under high server load — especially in a read-heavy environment..
  Do you think this trade-off makes sense? If you feel this is an over-optimization, I’d be happy to simplify the code as you suggested.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think keeping the code below is good enough, it's very readable. and the pre-check only make sense if the same sessionID is deleted multiple times, but that’s a rare case (or should not happen)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Removed.

@rwjblue-glean rwjblue-glean merged commit cf6a2e9 into mark3labs:main Jun 8, 2025
4 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants