mirror of
https://gitlab.com/veilid/veilid.git
synced 2024-12-24 23:09:25 -05:00
call set_record_data_size with accumulated size
set_subkey corrupts record_data_size in a Record struct by calling set_record_data_size with a value that depends only on the length of the new subkey value. This leads to various undesirable outcomes, such as: applications can write more than MAX_RECORD_DATA_SIZE without encountering the intended "veilid.error.VeilidAPIErrorGeneric: label='Generic' message='dht record too large'" error message, and "panicked at 'attempt to subtract with overflow'" (i.e., an attempt to set a negative value of a size) if a subkey's new length is less than a subkey's old length. Typically, record_data_size in a Record struct will be incorrect if a value was set for more than one subkey. Some users might want to start over with a table_store that doesn't have any incorrect record_data_size values. The issue begins here:6f71c6a00a/veilid-core/src/storage_manager/record_store.rs (L583-L586)
and is triggered here:6f71c6a00a/veilid-core/src/storage_manager/record_store.rs (L613-L615)
It should be clear that new_record_data_size is only related to the subkey that is currently being set. The amount of data in the record, before set_subkey is called, is ignored. It appears that new_total_size, not new_record_data_size, was intended to be used for set_record_data_size, and this change succeeds for me in limited testing but I don't have a comprehensive test suite. One way to reproduce is by running the code from https://gitlab.com/vatueil/veilid-file on a greater than 1 MB file while watching variable values within veilid-core/src/storage_manager/record_store.rs. For example: "poetry run file put /usr/bin/tcpdump" (1.3 MB on Ubuntu 23.04). With the original Veilid code, each of the dozens of subkey writes is checking whether a roughly 32K value is greater than 1048576, it never is, and thus there is never a "dht record too large" error. With the patch in this MR, each of the dozens of subkey writes is checking whether an ever-increasing value is greater than 1048576, it eventually is, and the "dht record too large" error is printed. With the patch, one can work with smaller files, e.g., do "poetry run file put /usr/bin/ssh" (0.8 MB) followed by "poetry run file get VLD0:<_insert_key_here_> ssh-copy" and the retrieved file ssh-copy is identical to /usr/bin/ssh. The more detailed behavior is that the modified code has record.total_size of 350 on the first iteration, then 33596, 66842, 100088, etc. The original code also has record.total_size of 350 on the first iteration, but then stays at 33246 forever (33246 is the user-supplied subkey size of 32768, plus 128, plus the minimum record size of 350),
This commit is contained in:
parent
6f71c6a00a
commit
5dd0a3793b
@ -612,7 +612,7 @@ where
|
||||
// Update record
|
||||
self.with_record_mut(key, |record| {
|
||||
record.store_subkey(subkey);
|
||||
record.set_record_data_size(new_record_data_size);
|
||||
record.set_record_data_size(new_total_size);
|
||||
})
|
||||
.expect("record should still be here");
|
||||
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user