[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9317?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15206849#comment-15206849
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on CLOUDSTACK-9317:
Github user rafaelweingartner commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1450#discussion_r57031859
--- Diff: server/src/com/cloud/network/IpAddressManagerImpl.java ---
@@ -1714,8 +1714,13 @@ public boolean applyStaticNats(List staticNats, boolean con
return true;
}
-// get the list of public ip's owned by the network
-List userIps =
_ipAddressDao.listByAssociatedNetwork(network.getId(), null);
+// get the list of public ip's that need to be applied for the
static NAT. manipulating only these
+// ips prevents concurrency issues when disabling static nat at
the same time.
+List userIps = new ArrayList<>();
--- End diff --
Hi @ProjectMoon, what about creating a method that returns the userIps
list. This new method would contain lines 1719-1722. Then, you would be able to
write a unit test and add lines 1717-1718 as its java documentation.
> Disabling static NAT on many IPs can leave wrong IPs on the router
> --
>
> Key: CLOUDSTACK-9317
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9317
> Project: CloudStack
> Issue Type: Bug
> Security Level: Public(Anyone can view this level - this is the
> default.)
> Components: Management Server, Virtual Router
>Affects Versions: 4.7.0, 4.7.1, 4.7.2
>Reporter: Jeff Hair
>
> The current behavior of enabling or disabling static NAT will call the apply
> IP associations method in the management server. The method is not
> thread-safe. If it's called from multiple threads, each thread will load up
> the list of public IPs in different states (add or revoke)--correct for the
> thread, but not correct overall. Depending on execution order on the virtual
> router, the router can end up with public IPs assigned to it that are not
> supposed to be on it anymore. When another account acquires the same IP, this
> of course leads to network problems.
> The problem has been in CS since at least 4.2, and likely affects all
> recently released versions. Affected version is set to 4.7.x because that's
> what we verified against.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
