Skip to content
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

etcdserver: call refreshRangePermCache on Recover() in AuthStore. #14574

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Oct 27, 2022

Conversation

veshij
Copy link
Contributor

@veshij veshij commented Oct 11, 2022

When new node joins the cluster and applies snapshot - auth cache is not updated.
On auth-enabled cluster it leads to all requests with "user doesn't exist".
It also leads to data inconsistencies in the cluster since updates can't be applied from raft log.
See discussion in #14571.

Fixes: #14571

@ahrtr
Copy link
Member

ahrtr commented Oct 12, 2022

At least an e2e test case needs to be added to verify the case.

The current e2e test framework doesn't support dynamically adding new member. Please wait for #14404 to get merged firstly. Afterwards, you can add an e2e test case for this PR.

@ahrtr
Copy link
Member

ahrtr commented Oct 16, 2022

Please add an e2e test case following the same way as https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/blob/main/tests/e2e/etcd_grpcproxy_test.go

@veshij
Copy link
Contributor Author

veshij commented Oct 16, 2022 via email

@veshij
Copy link
Contributor Author

veshij commented Oct 19, 2022

status update: working on e2e test, can't really reproduce an issue so far.

@veshij
Copy link
Contributor Author

veshij commented Oct 20, 2022

Updated the PR with e2e test.

tests/framework/e2e/cluster.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
tests/e2e/ctl_v3_auth_cluster_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
tests/framework/e2e/cluster.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
tests/framework/e2e/etcdctl.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Oct 20, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #14574 (3f13cc8) into main (c45f338) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #14574   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   75.47%   75.47%           
=======================================
  Files         457      457           
  Lines       37274    37276    +2     
=======================================
+ Hits        28133    28135    +2     
+ Misses       7373     7367    -6     
- Partials     1768     1774    +6     
Flag Coverage Δ
all 75.47% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
server/auth/range_perm_cache.go 70.37% <100.00%> (+0.37%) ⬆️
server/auth/store.go 85.38% <100.00%> (+1.17%) ⬆️
client/pkg/v3/fileutil/purge.go 68.85% <0.00%> (-6.56%) ⬇️
server/proxy/grpcproxy/watch.go 92.48% <0.00%> (-4.05%) ⬇️
server/etcdserver/api/v3rpc/auth.go 80.45% <0.00%> (-2.30%) ⬇️
server/etcdserver/api/v3election/election.go 68.18% <0.00%> (-2.28%) ⬇️
server/etcdserver/api/rafthttp/msgappv2_codec.go 69.56% <0.00%> (-1.74%) ⬇️
server/etcdserver/api/v3rpc/watch.go 83.49% <0.00%> (-1.27%) ⬇️
client/v3/maintenance.go 59.37% <0.00%> (-1.25%) ⬇️
server/etcdserver/api/v3rpc/interceptor.go 76.56% <0.00%> (-1.05%) ⬇️
... and 12 more

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

@veshij
Copy link
Contributor Author

veshij commented Oct 25, 2022

@ahrtr rebased the PR, could you take a look pls?

tests/framework/e2e/cluster.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
tests/framework/e2e/cluster.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
tests/e2e/ctl_v3_auth_cluster_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
tests/e2e/ctl_v3_auth_cluster_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@ahrtr
Copy link
Member

ahrtr commented Oct 26, 2022

Please rebase this PR again.

@veshij
Copy link
Contributor Author

veshij commented Oct 26, 2022

Please rebase this PR again.

done

@mitake
Copy link
Contributor

mitake commented Oct 26, 2022

@veshij also could you squash test related commits into a single commit?

@veshij veshij force-pushed the main branch 2 times, most recently from 0438192 to 392c288 Compare October 27, 2022 00:53
@veshij
Copy link
Contributor Author

veshij commented Oct 27, 2022

Please resolve comment #14574 (comment)

done

@veshij veshij force-pushed the main branch 2 times, most recently from 494ba7d to 4e5e74f Compare October 27, 2022 18:03
Signed-off-by: Oleg Guba <oleg@dropbox.com>
Comment on lines +75 to +90
t.Logf("not exactly 2 hashkv responses returned: %d", len(hashKvs))
return false
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It should be an error or fatal error, and fail the test immediately.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In case of a node returns an error (which sometimes happens on first request) e2e hashkv implementation returns single entry without an explicit error.
Unfortunately I'm not ready to troubleshoot that further as part of this PR, we've already spent quite a bit on finding issues with e2e test implementations.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe return code is not checked around here

func NewExpectWithEnv(name string, args []string, env []string, serverProcessConfigName string) (ep *ExpectProcess, err error) {
ep = &ExpectProcess{
cfg: expectConfig{
name: serverProcessConfigName,
cmd: name,
args: args,
env: env,
},
}
ep.cmd = commandFromConfig(ep.cfg)
if ep.fpty, err = pty.Start(ep.cmd); err != nil {
return nil, err
}
ep.wg.Add(1)
go ep.read()
return ep, nil
}

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You already considered the case above, line 71 & 72

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

71...72 will be triggered if HashKV() returns an error, but it does not, just a truncated response.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It seems that we might need to enhance (*ExpectProcess) ExpectFunc. When the process exited with an error code ( != 0), then we need to return an error.

Please feel free to investigate & enhance it in a separate PR. Let's update this PR per https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/pull/14574/files#r1007400980

I expect any methods of EtcdctlV3, including HashKV, should return an error when the command etcdctl exits with an error code.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@veshij veshij Oct 27, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not sure I'll have time to work on ExpectProcess fixes, I don't know how many tests will fail if we change the behavior and what else will need to be updated.
I'll be happy to rebase this PR and update the test to explicitly fail once e2e env is fixed, will leave it as is for now.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Tracked it in #14638

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I might take a look a bit later this week, can't promise.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Guba <oleg@dropbox.com>
Copy link
Member

@ahrtr ahrtr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Great work. Thank you @veshij

Could you backport this PR to 3.5 and 3.4?

@veshij
Copy link
Contributor Author

veshij commented Oct 27, 2022

LGTM

Great work. Thank you @veshij

Could you backport this PR to 3.5 and 3.4?

yep, will do this week.

@ahrtr ahrtr merged commit 1570dc9 into etcd-io:main Oct 27, 2022
@mitake
Copy link
Contributor

mitake commented Oct 28, 2022

Thanks a lot for fixing the issue @veshij !

@veshij
Copy link
Contributor Author

veshij commented Oct 28, 2022

@ahrtr started looking into backporting to 3.4/3.5.
Looks like e2e test env was significantly updated since then and changes were not backported.

Is there a plan to backport e2e changes? I can backport the fix itself w/o touching tests though.

@ahrtr
Copy link
Member

ahrtr commented Oct 28, 2022

@ahrtr started looking into backporting to 3.4/3.5. Looks like e2e test env was significantly updated since then and changes were not backported.

Is there a plan to backport e2e changes? I can backport the fix itself w/o touching tests though.

Yes, we need to backport the e2e test firstly. @biosvs Do you have bandwidth to backport #14589 to 3.5 and probably 3.4?

@biosvs
Copy link
Contributor

biosvs commented Oct 29, 2022

@ahrtr When I worked on backporting of my tests, it was impossible to backport changes for testing framework itself due to huge number of changes in e2e framework between 3.5 and main branch.

It's definitely easier to use raw calls, as I did it in #14397.

These calls could be collected to some "library" package, I guess, but I'll have time to try it only in a week (i.e. after next week).

@ahrtr
Copy link
Member

ahrtr commented Oct 29, 2022

@ahrtr When I worked on backporting of my tests, it was impossible to backport changes for testing framework itself due to huge number of changes in e2e framework between 3.5 and main branch.

It's definitely easier to use raw calls, as I did it in #14397.

These calls could be collected to some "library" package, I guess, but I'll have time to try it only in a week (i.e. after next week).

Thanks for the feedback. Let me take care of it.

Comment on lines +67 to +70
// start second process
if err := epc.StartNewProc(ctx, t, rootUserClientOpts); err != nil {
t.Fatalf("could not start second etcd process (%v)", err)
}
Copy link
Member

@chaochn47 chaochn47 Nov 4, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This won't trigger transfering db snapshot to new member and restore auth store from backend. Confirmed by local testing.

By default SnapshotCatchUpEntries is 5k.

// SnapshotCatchUpEntries is the number of entries for a slow follower
// to catch-up after compacting the raft storage entries.
// We expect the follower has a millisecond level latency with the leader.
// The max throughput is around 10K. Keep a 5K entries is enough for helping
// follower to catch up.
// WARNING: only change this for tests. Always use "DefaultSnapshotCatchUpEntries"
SnapshotCatchUpEntries uint64

E2E test don't have ability to tune this hard-coded value while integration test could. For example

func TestV3CorruptAlarmWithLeaseCorrupted(t *testing.T) {
integration.BeforeTest(t)
lg := zaptest.NewLogger(t)
clus := integration.NewCluster(t, &integration.ClusterConfig{
CorruptCheckTime: time.Second,
Size: 3,
SnapshotCount: 10,
SnapshotCatchUpEntries: 5,
DisableStrictReconfigCheck: true,
})

So I doubt this test really protects the issue from happening again while the fix makes sense to me. @veshij @ahrtr

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good catch! The reason why we can successfully & manually reproduce & verify this is that the snapi is usually < 5K, it always compacts all entries starting from index 2.

compacti := uint64(1)
if snapi > s.Cfg.SnapshotCatchUpEntries {
compacti = snapi - s.Cfg.SnapshotCatchUpEntries
}

Two points:

  1. This might not be correct, we shouldn't compact the log at all if snapi < 5K. Of course, it isn't a big deal.
  2. In an e2e or integration test case, the snapi should be usually < 5K, so the test case should be still valid. But I agree that we should correct it. So let's write more than 5K K/V to make it correct and stable.

@chaochn47 @veshij Please feel free to deliver a PR to address it for both main and release-3.5. Let fix # 2 firstly, and probably @ 1 separately.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just to confirm - we need to only increase number of keys written to 5K (>= SnapshotCatchUpEntries)?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

YES

Copy link
Member

@chaochn47 chaochn47 Nov 4, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The reason why we can successfully & manually reproduce & verify this is that the snapi is usually < 5K, it always compacts all entries starting from index 2.

I am a little bit confused about this statement. How this test reproduced the scenario that db snapshot is transferred to new member? @ahrtr

Looks like raft log won't be compacted unless the very first one entry.

etcd/raft/storage.go

Lines 227 to 248 in 0dfd726

// Compact discards all log entries prior to compactIndex.
// It is the application's responsibility to not attempt to compact an index
// greater than raftLog.applied.
func (ms *MemoryStorage) Compact(compactIndex uint64) error {
ms.Lock()
defer ms.Unlock()
offset := ms.ents[0].Index
if compactIndex <= offset {
return ErrCompacted
}
if compactIndex > ms.lastIndex() {
getLogger().Panicf("compact %d is out of bound lastindex(%d)", compactIndex, ms.lastIndex())
}
i := compactIndex - offset
ents := make([]pb.Entry, 1, 1+uint64(len(ms.ents))-i)
ents[0].Index = ms.ents[i].Index
ents[0].Term = ms.ents[i].Term
ents = append(ents, ms.ents[i+1:]...)
ms.ents = ents
return nil
}

When new member bootstraps, leader will replicate all the entries to new member instead of transferring snapshot, right?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I obviously don't fully understand the replication behavior here, but what I noticed while writing the test - without SnapshotCount set to some low value I wasn't able to trigger the issue. Based on logs it looked like raft log was applied instead of snapshot.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Correction to my previous typo: all entries starting from index 2 will be retained. Since the first entry is compacted, so when a new member is added, the leader will still send a snapshot to the new member.

So let's add the following two cases:

  1. keep the current case;
  2. write more than 5K K/V, e.g 5100, and keep all others unchanged.

This won't trigger transfering db snapshot to new member and restore auth store from backend. Confirmed by local testing.

I am curious how did you confirm that?

Copy link
Member

@chaochn47 chaochn47 Nov 4, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the explanation!! Just verified again new member will always receive a snapshot from leader whenever the configured snapshot count < KV writes.

/home/chaochn/go/src/go.etcd.io/etcd/bin/etcd (TestAuthCluster-test-0) (23533): 
{
	"level": "info",
	"ts": "2022-11-04T06:05:50.932Z",
	"caller": "etcdserver/snapshot_merge.go:66",
	"msg": "sent database snapshot to writer",
	"bytes": 20480,
	"size": "20 kB"
}
/home/chaochn/go/src/go.etcd.io/etcd/bin/etcd (TestAuthCluster-test-1) (23773): 
{
	"level": "info",
	"ts": "2022-11-04T06:05:50.932Z",
	"caller": "rafthttp/http.go:257",
	"msg": "receiving database snapshot",
	"local-member-id": "4e6825c690b0cb86",
	"remote-snapshot-sender-id": "ca50e9357181d758",
	"incoming-snapshot-index": 48,
	"incoming-snapshot-message-size-bytes": 7723,
	"incoming-snapshot-message-size": "7.7 kB"
}

I must be confused by existing member restart and new member joining the cluster.

The former requires at least 5k KV writes to trigger a db snapshot.

Sorry for the confusion, all good and make sense to me now!

tjungblu pushed a commit to tjungblu/etcd that referenced this pull request Jul 26, 2023
…d-io#14574

Signed-off-by: Oleg Guba <oleg@dropbox.com>
Signed-off-by: Hitoshi Mitake <h.mitake@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3.5.5: client auth failures on new member first startup
6 participants