On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 1:41 AM Eelco Chaudron <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 31 Jan 2026, at 2:32, Ilya Maximets wrote:
>
> > If a server that doesn't have an up-to-date log attempts a pre-vote,
> > it is possible that it will be granted.  This can happen when the
> > request is not considered disruptive (sufficient time have passed
> > since the last message seen) because the current code doesn't check
> > the log length if the receiver already voted for any other server on
> > the current term.
> >
> > This is not good, as the pre-vote supposed to determine if the
> > requester can win elections on the next term, and it can not if its
> > log is not up-to-date.
> >
> > In general, the current vote has no meaning for the next term.  At the
> > beginning of the next term the vote will be set to zero in any case,
> > so the only thing we should be checking is the log being up-to-date.
> >
> > The test for a disruptive server with an outdated log reproduces the
> > issue, so it was extended to make sure the outdated server never wins
> > the pre-vote.
> >
> > Fixes: 85634fd58004 ("ovsdb: raft: Support pre-vote mechanism to deal
with disruptive server.")
> > Reported-at:
https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2026-January/428993.html
> > Reported-by: Han Zhou <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Ilya Maximets <[email protected]>
>
> Thanks for the patch, Ilya.
>
> Going over the logic, this change makes sense to me. As I’m not too
familiar with the overall code, it still would be good to get a review from
Han.
>
> Acked-by: Eelco Chaudron <[email protected]>

Thanks Ilya, Eelco, it looks good to me as well.
Acked-by: Han Zhou <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to