1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
|
It's possible for concurrent web edits to race and the winner commits both
changes at once with its commit message (see r2779). The loser gets a
message that there were conflicts and gets to see his own edits as the
conflicting edits he's supposed to resolve.
This can happen because CGI.pm writes the change, then drops the main wiki
lock before calling rcs_commit. It can't keep the lock because the commit
hook needs to be able to lock.
We batted this around for an hour or two on irc. The best solution seems to
be adding a subsidiary second lock, which is only used to lock the working
copy and is a blocking read/write lock.
* As before, the CGI will take the main wiki lock when starting up.
* Before writing to the WC, the CGI takes an exclusive lock on the WC.
* After writing to the WC, the CGI can downgrade it to a shared lock.
(If this downgrade does not happen atomically, other CGIs can
steal the exclusive lock.)
* Then the CGI, as before, drops the main wiki lock to prevent deadlock. It
keeps its shared WC lock.
* The commit hook takes first the main wiki lock and then the shared WC lock
when starting up, and holds them until it's done.
* Once the commit is done, the CGI, as before, does not attempt to regain
the main wiki lock (that could deadlock). It does its final stuff and
exits, dropping the shared WC lock.
Locking:
Using fcntl locking from perl is very hard. flock locking has the problem
that one some OSes (linux?) converting an exclusive to a shared lock is not
atomic and can be raced. What happens if this race occurs is that,
since ikiwiki always uses LOCK_NB, the flock fails. Then we're back to the
original race. It should be possible though to use a separate exclusive lock,
wrapped around these flock calls, to force them to be "atomic" and avoid that
race.
Sample patch, with stub functions for the new lock:
[[toggle text="expand patch"]]
[[toggleable text="""
<pre>
Index: IkiWiki/CGI.pm
===================================================================
--- IkiWiki/CGI.pm (revision 2774)
+++ IkiWiki/CGI.pm (working copy)
@@ -494,9 +494,14 @@
$content=~s/\r\n/\n/g;
$content=~s/\r/\n/g;
+ lockwc_exclusive();
+
$config{cgi}=0; # avoid cgi error message
eval { writefile($file, $config{srcdir}, $content) };
$config{cgi}=1;
+
+ lockwc_shared();
+
if ($@) {
$form->field(name => "rcsinfo", value => rcs_prepedit($file),
force => 1);
Index: IkiWiki/Plugin/poll.pm
===================================================================
--- IkiWiki/Plugin/poll.pm (revision 2770)
+++ IkiWiki/Plugin/poll.pm (working copy)
@@ -120,7 +120,9 @@
$content =~ s{(\\?)\[\[poll\s+([^]]+)\s*\]\]}{$edit->($1, $2)}seg;
# Store their vote, update the page, and redirect to it.
+ IkiWiki::lockwc_exclusive();
writefile($pagesources{$page}, $config{srcdir}, $content);
+ IkiWiki::lockwc_shared();
$session->param($choice_param, $choice);
IkiWiki::cgi_savesession($session);
$oldchoice=$session->param($choice_param);
@@ -130,6 +132,10 @@
IkiWiki::rcs_commit($pagesources{$page}, "poll vote ($choice)",
IkiWiki::rcs_prepedit($pagesources{$page}),
$session->param("name"), $ENV{REMOTE_ADDR});
+ # Make sure that the repo is up-to-date;
+ # locking prevents the post-commit hook
+ # from updating it.
+ rcs_update();
}
else {
require IkiWiki::Render;
Index: ikiwiki.in
===================================================================
--- ikiwiki.in (revision 2770)
+++ ikiwiki.in (working copy)
@@ -121,6 +121,7 @@
lockwiki();
loadindex();
require IkiWiki::Render;
+ lockwc_shared();
rcs_update();
refresh();
rcs_notify() if $config{notify};
Index: IkiWiki.pm
===================================================================
--- IkiWiki.pm (revision 2770)
+++ IkiWiki.pm (working copy)
@@ -617,6 +617,29 @@
close WIKILOCK;
} #}}}
+sub lockwc_exclusive () { #{{{
+ # Take an exclusive lock on the working copy.
+ # The lock will be dropped on program exit.
+ # Note: This lock should only be taken _after_ the main wiki
+ # lock.
+
+ # TODO
+} #}}}
+
+sub lockwc_shared () { #{{{
+ # Take a shared lock on the working copy. If an exclusive lock
+ # already exists, downgrade it to a shared lock.
+ # The lock will be dropped on program exit.
+ # Note: This lock should only be taken _after_ the main wiki
+ # lock.
+
+ # TODO
+} #}}}
+
+sub unlockwc () { #{{{
+ close WIKIWCLOCK;
+} #}}}
+
sub loadindex () { #{{{
open (IN, "$config{wikistatedir}/index") || return;
while (<IN>) {
</pre>
"""]]
My alternative idea, which seems simpler than all this tricky locking
stuff, is to introduce a new lock file (really a flag file implemented
using a lock), which tells the commit hook that the CGI is running, and
makes the commit hook a NOOP.
* CGI takes the wikilock
* CGI writes changes to WC
* CGI sets wclock to disable the commit hook
* CGI does *not* drop the main wikilock
* CGI commit
* The commit hook tries to set the wclock, fails, and becomes a noop
(it may still need to send commit mails)
* CGI removes wclock, thus re-enabling the commit hook
* CGI updates the WC (since the commit hook didn't)
* CGI renders the wiki (always. commits may have came in and not been
rendered)
* CGI checks for conflicts, and if any are found does its normal dance
> It seems like there are two things to be concerned with: RCS commit between
> disable of hook and CGI commit, or RCS commit between CGI commit and re-enable
> of hook. The second case isn't a big deal if the CGI is gonna rerender
> everything anyhow. --[[Ethan]]
I agree, and I think that the second case points to the hooks still being
responsible for sending out commit mails. Everything else the CGI can do.
I don't believe that the first case is actually a problem: If the RCS
commit does not introduce a conflict then the CGI commit's changes will be
merged into the repo cleanly. OTOH, if the RCS commit does introduces a
conflict then the CGI commit will fail gracefully. This is exactly what
happens now if RCS commit happens while a CGI commit is in progress! Ie:
* cgi takes the wikilock
* cgi writes change to wc
* svn commit -m "conflict" (this makes a change to repo immediately, then
runs the post-commit hook, which waits on the wikilock)
* cgi drops wikilock
* the post-commit hook from the above manual commit can now run.
* cgi calls rcs_commit, which fails due to the conflict just introduced
The only difference to this scenario will be that the CGI will not drop the
wiki lock before its commit, and that the post-commit hook will turn into a
NOOP:
* cgi takes the wikilock
* cgi writes change to wc
* cgi takes the wclock
* svn commit -m "conflict" (this makes a change to repo immediately, then
runs the post-commit hook, which becomes a NOOP)
* cgi calls rcs_commit, which fails due to the conflict just introduced
* cgi renders the wiki
Actually, the only thing that scares me about this apprach a little is that
we have two locks. The CGI takes them in the order (wikilock, wclock).
The commit hook takes them in the order (wclock, wikilock). This is a
classic potential deadlock scenario. _However_, the commit hook should
close the wclock as soon as it successfully opens it, before taking the
wikilock, so I think that's ok.
|