Summary: IMMND replies BAD_HANDLE if client node is missing for non fevs
request [#637]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 637
Peer Reviewer(s): Neel, HansF
Pull request to:
Affected branch(es): 4.2; 4.3; default(4.4)
Development branch:
--------------------------------
Impacted area Impact y/n
--------------------------------
Docs n
Build system n
RPM/packaging n
Configuration files n
Startup scripts n
SAF services n
OpenSAF services n
Core libraries n
Samples n
Tests n
Other n
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
changeset 946fc40a7ac4ac0405aa564b46f4501559fe49f3
Author: Anders Bjornerstedt <anders.bjornerst...@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:30:13 +0100
IMMND replies BAD_HANDLE if client node is missing for non fevs request
[#637]
For non fevs requests, if the local IMMND can not find the client node
corresponding to the imm-handle sent by the client, then the local IMMND
replies directly with SA_AIS_ERR_BAD_HANDLE, instead of just dropping
the
request and causing client to timeout.
This short circuited behavior is not possible for fevs requests, because
such requests are forwarded to the IMMD and broadcast back to all IMMNDs
including the originating node. The originating node's IMMND then no
longer
has the reply information on the stack. It expects to find it in the
client
node on the heap. If the client node does not exist, then no reply, not
even
ERR_BAD_HANDLE, can be sent to the client of that fevs request.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/immnd_evt.c | 22 ++++++++++++----------
1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
This may not be easy to reproduce because we dont know what triggered the
problem.
No syslogs existed for the time when the problem started. Symptom was that AMFD
somehow lost contact with the local IMMND such that the client node in the IMMND
was discarded but this without imma client library in AMFD getting any IMMND
down.
Most likely is that this was some kind of MDS/TIPC issue.
The AMFD continued to try to use the IMM handle, yet only got timeout on each
such
request, because the IMMND did not respond on requests from a no longer existing
client (not existing from the local IMMND perspective). The patch alters the
behavior when this case happens for non fevs requests. Besides discarding the
request, an error reply (ERR_BAD_HANDLE) is also sent back to the disavowed
client.
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
If reproducible, then the AMFD should not end up in an endless loop of
sending request and receiving reply. Instead the AMFD will receive
BAD_HANDLE and should hopefully aquire a fresh imm-handle.
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack from Neel.
Arch Built Started Linux distro
-------------------------------------------
mips n n
mips64 n n
x86 n n
x86_64 n n
powerpc n n
powerpc64 n n
Reviewer Checklist:
-------------------
[Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!]
Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries):
___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries
that need proper data filled in.
___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push.
___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header
___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable.
___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text.
___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits.
___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files
(i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc)
___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests.
Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing.
___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed.
___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes
like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs.
___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other
cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits.
___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is
too much content into a single commit.
___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc)
___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent;
Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled.
___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded
commits, or place in a public tree for a pull.
___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication
of what has changed between each re-send.
___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the
comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review.
___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc)
___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the
the threaded patch review.
___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results
for in-service upgradability test.
___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series
do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT
organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance
affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your
Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349351&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
