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

release-24.1: release-24.2: storage: fix comparison of suffixes #129740

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 28, 2024

Conversation

blathers-crl[bot]
Copy link

@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot commented Aug 27, 2024

Backport 1/1 commits from #129605 on behalf of @RaduBerinde.

/cc @cockroachdb/release


This is a partial backport of #128043. CC @cockroachdb/release

Release justification: this fixes an issue hit in a real cluster where
a range key is never cleaned up.

The EngineComparer has a bug when comparing bare suffixes - we call
the normalization function on a slice without the sentinel byte; that
function's logic is based on length so it will not function properly.

We recently observed that this can cause problems when a
RangeKeySet has a suffix with the (now obsolete) synthetic bit set,
and the corresponding RangeKeyUnset is issued by a newer version and
doesn't have the bit set. These suffixes are supposed to equal each
other but this is not currently the case.

We fix the comparator to account for this case correctly and add a
more comprehensive test. On the old code, the updated test failed
with:

Compare(0000000000000002000000010d, 000000000000000200000001010e) = 1, expected 0

Fixes: #129592
Release note: None


Release justification:

This is a partial backport of #128043.

Release justification: this fixes an issue hit in a real cluster where
a range key is never cleaned up.

The EngineComparer has a bug when comparing bare suffixes - we call
the normalization function on a slice without the sentinel byte; that
function's logic is based on length so it will not function properly.

We recently observed that this can cause problems when a
RangeKeySet has a suffix with the (now obsolete) synthetic bit set,
and the corresponding `RangeKeyUnset` is issued by a newer version and
doesn't have the bit set. These suffixes are supposed to equal each
other but this is not currently the case.

We fix the comparator to account for this case correctly and add a
more comprehensive test. On the old code, the updated test failed
with:
```
Compare(0000000000000002000000010d, 000000000000000200000001010e) = 1, expected 0
```

Fixes: None
Release note: None
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot force-pushed the blathers/backport-release-24.1-129605 branch from 59df7c7 to ee5bdc2 Compare August 27, 2024 18:35
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot requested a review from a team as a code owner August 27, 2024 18:35
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot requested a review from jbowens August 27, 2024 18:35
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot added blathers-backport This is a backport that Blathers created automatically. O-robot Originated from a bot. labels Aug 27, 2024
Copy link
Author

blathers-crl bot commented Aug 27, 2024

Thanks for opening a backport.

Please check the backport criteria before merging:

  • Backports should only be created for serious
    issues
    or test-only changes.
  • Backports should not break backwards-compatibility.
  • Backports should change as little code as possible.
  • Backports should not change on-disk formats or node communication protocols.
  • Backports should not add new functionality (except as defined
    here).
  • Backports must not add, edit, or otherwise modify cluster versions; or add version gates.
  • All backports must be reviewed by the owning areas TL. For more information as to how that review should be conducted, please consult the backport
    policy
    .
If your backport adds new functionality, please ensure that the following additional criteria are satisfied:
  • There is a high priority need for the functionality that cannot wait until the next release and is difficult to address in another way.
  • The new functionality is additive-only and only runs for clusters which have specifically “opted in” to it (e.g. by a cluster setting).
  • New code is protected by a conditional check that is trivial to verify and ensures that it only runs for opt-in clusters. State changes must be further protected such that nodes running old binaries will not be negatively impacted by the new state (with a mixed version test added).
  • The PM and TL on the team that owns the changed code have signed off that the change obeys the above rules.
  • Your backport must be accompanied by a post to the appropriate Slack
    channel (#db-backports-point-releases or #db-backports-XX-X-release) for awareness and discussion.

Also, please add a brief release justification to the body of your PR to justify this
backport.

@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot requested review from nicktrav, RaduBerinde and tbg August 27, 2024 18:35
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot added the backport Label PR's that are backports to older release branches label Aug 27, 2024
@cockroach-teamcity
Copy link
Member

This change is Reviewable

Copy link
Collaborator

@jbowens jbowens left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

:lgtm_strong:

Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @nicktrav, @RaduBerinde, and @tbg)

@RaduBerinde RaduBerinde merged commit 03f417e into release-24.1 Aug 28, 2024
19 of 20 checks passed
@RaduBerinde RaduBerinde deleted the blathers/backport-release-24.1-129605 branch August 28, 2024 22:17
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backport Label PR's that are backports to older release branches blathers-backport This is a backport that Blathers created automatically. O-robot Originated from a bot.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants