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

lxc: cleanup partially configured containers after errors in Start #3773

Merged

Conversation

mikemccracken
Copy link
Contributor

Context:

A test added in #3687 does not clean up the container it creates.
This is actually a bug in the driver, not the test - there's no way for the test to clean up a partially configured container because Start() doesn't return a handle on error. This PR fixes this.

Here's the commit comment:

If there are any errors in container setup after c.Create() in
Start(), the container will be left around, with no way to clean it up
because the handle will not be created or returned from Start.

Added a wrapper that checks for errors and performs appropriate
cleanup. Returning a cleanup function from a wrapped function instead
of just doing the cleanup before returning the error helps to ensure
that future changes that might add or change error exits can't forget
to consider a cleanup function.

Adds a check to the invalid config test case to check that a container
created with an invalid config doesn't get left behind.

If there are any errors in container setup after c.Create() in
Start(), the container will be left around, with no way to clean it up
because the handle will not be created or returned from Start.

Added a wrapper that checks for errors and performs appropriate
cleanup. Returning a cleanup function from a wrapped function instead
of just doing the cleanup before returning the error helps to ensure
that future changes that might add or change error exits can't forget
to consider a cleanup function.

Adds a check to the invalid config test case to check that a container
created with an invalid config doesn't get left behind.

Signed-off-by: Michael McCracken <[email protected]>
Copy link
Member

@schmichael schmichael left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for catching this! Approach looks great, just some minor comments.

sresp, err, errCleanup := d.StartWithCleanup(ctx, task)
if err != nil {
if cleanupErr := errCleanup(); cleanupErr != nil {
d.logger.Printf("[ERR] error occured:\n%v\nwhile cleaning up from error in Start: %v", cleanupErr, err)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Remove the newline and err from this message since err will be logged later anyway.


stopAndDestroyCleanup := func() error {
if err := c.Stop(); err != nil {
return err
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we attempt to Destroy the container even if Stop fails, or will Destroy never succeed if Stop errors? I'm unfamiliar with lxc's behavior in this circumstance and the Go library's docs aren't very useful.

If it's safe to call Destroy if Stop errors, I'd suggest just ignoring Destroy's return value and returning the original Stop effort (so Destroy is just a best-effort at cleaning up).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It looks like the only reasons that Stop might fail would also cause Destroy to fail. I think returning without trying Destroy is the right thing here.

if err := c.Destroy(); err != nil {
return err
}
return nil
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This last few lines can be simplified to return c.Destroy()

return sresp, err
}

func (d *LxcDriver) StartWithCleanup(ctx *ExecContext, task *structs.Task) (*StartResponse, error, func() error) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Minor nitpick, but let's lowercase Start so this method isn't exported as it shouldn't be called directly.

don't export an internal function, and simplify some code

Signed-off-by: Michael McCracken <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Michael McCracken <[email protected]>
@schmichael schmichael merged commit d50ae8a into hashicorp:master Jan 30, 2018
@schmichael
Copy link
Member

Thanks @mikemccracken!

schmichael added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2018
schmichael added a commit to schmichael/nomad that referenced this pull request Feb 14, 2018
@github-actions
Copy link

I'm going to lock this pull request because it has been closed for 120 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active contributions.
If you have found a problem that seems related to this change, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 13, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants