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

Fix Data race in semi-join #17417

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

GuptaManan100
Copy link
Member

Description

As described in #17410 and #17411, there is a data race in the stream execute code of semi-join.

This PR adds a test to uncover the problem and fixes it.

Related Issue(s)

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 added Type: Bug Component: Query Serving Backport to: release-19.0 Needs to be back ported to release-19.0 Backport to: release-20.0 Needs to be backport to release-20.0 Backport to: release-21.0 Needs to be backport to release-21.0 labels Dec 20, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Dec 20, 2024

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Dec 20, 2024
@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Dec 20, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v22.0.0 milestone Dec 20, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 20, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 67.64%. Comparing base (56b5c2a) to head (9440d4a).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #17417      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   67.60%   67.64%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files        1581     1581              
  Lines      253945   253777     -168     
==========================================
+ Hits       171670   171674       +4     
+ Misses      82275    82103     -172     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Comment on lines 66 to 74
err := vcursor.StreamExecutePrimitive(ctx, jn.Left, bindVars, wantfields, func(lresult *sqltypes.Result) error {
joinVars := make(map[string]*querypb.BindVariable)
result := &sqltypes.Result{Fields: lresult.Fields}
for _, lrow := range lresult.Rows {
for k, col := range jn.Vars {
joinVars[k] = sqltypes.ValueBindVariable(lrow[col])
}
rowAdded := false
var rowAdded atomic.Bool
err := vcursor.StreamExecutePrimitive(ctx, jn.Right, combineVars(bindVars, joinVars), false, func(rresult *sqltypes.Result) error {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There is another issue I mentioned: during a transaction, we might end up opening two connections, leaving one of them in limbo.
Do you have another PR that fixes it?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I will open a separate issue for it, with separate tests and PR for it, after this one gets merged.

}
return nil
})
if err != nil {
return err
}
if rowAdded.Load() {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why is this one atomic? If this needs an atomic since it otherwise races, I imagine that the append on the next line also races and needs to be guarded with a lock then?

If this doesn't race, it doesn't need to be atomic?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes i know, I made the changes such that i could avoid using this atomic thing, but in the callback right above we are writing to it. We are only setting it to true but golang still complains in a -race test saying there is a concurrent write. So I had to make it atomic to avoid that. That being said, for strictly correctness purposes, we didn't need to make it atomic, but I couldn't figure out how to make the test work without making it atomic.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Backport to: release-19.0 Needs to be back ported to release-19.0 Backport to: release-20.0 Needs to be backport to release-20.0 Backport to: release-21.0 Needs to be backport to release-21.0 Component: Query Serving Type: Bug
Projects
None yet
4 participants