pacemaker/006-controller-reply.patch
Chris Lumens 4e91d187ae Wait for a reply from various controller commands
- Resolves: rhbz2221084
- Related: rhbz2189301
2023-07-27 14:19:16 -04:00

110 lines
4.1 KiB
Diff

From 3e31da0016795397bfeacb2f3d76ecfe35cc1f67 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ken Gaillot <kgaillot@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 14:52:42 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] Fix: libcrmcommon: wait for reply from appropriate controller
commands
ipc_controld.c:reply_expected() wrongly omitted PCMK__CONTROLD_CMD_NODES (which
hasn't been a problem because crm_node uses a mainloop instead of sync dispatch
for that) and CRM_OP_RM_NODE_CACHE (which can be sent via
ipc_client.c:pcmk_ipc_purge_node()).
Because CRM_OP_RM_NODE_CACHE gets only an ack and no further replies, we now
have to be careful not to return true from the controller's dispatch()
function, otherwise crm_node -R would wait forever for more data. That means
we have to check for whether any replies are expected, which means we have to
increment expected replies *before* sending a request (in case it's sync).
Regression introduced in 2.0.5 by ae14fa4a
Fixes T681
---
lib/common/ipc_controld.c | 49 ++++++++++++++-------------------------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/common/ipc_controld.c b/lib/common/ipc_controld.c
index 3c3a98964..405fd0518 100644
--- a/lib/common/ipc_controld.c
+++ b/lib/common/ipc_controld.c
@@ -177,18 +177,16 @@ set_nodes_data(pcmk_controld_api_reply_t *data, xmlNode *msg_data)
static bool
reply_expected(pcmk_ipc_api_t *api, xmlNode *request)
{
- const char *command = crm_element_value(request, F_CRM_TASK);
-
- if (command == NULL) {
- return false;
- }
-
- // We only need to handle commands that functions in this file can send
- return !strcmp(command, CRM_OP_REPROBE)
- || !strcmp(command, CRM_OP_NODE_INFO)
- || !strcmp(command, CRM_OP_PING)
- || !strcmp(command, CRM_OP_LRM_FAIL)
- || !strcmp(command, CRM_OP_LRM_DELETE);
+ // We only need to handle commands that API functions can send
+ return pcmk__str_any_of(crm_element_value(request, F_CRM_TASK),
+ PCMK__CONTROLD_CMD_NODES,
+ CRM_OP_LRM_DELETE,
+ CRM_OP_LRM_FAIL,
+ CRM_OP_NODE_INFO,
+ CRM_OP_PING,
+ CRM_OP_REPROBE,
+ CRM_OP_RM_NODE_CACHE,
+ NULL);
}
static bool
@@ -202,22 +200,12 @@ dispatch(pcmk_ipc_api_t *api, xmlNode *reply)
pcmk_controld_reply_unknown, NULL, NULL,
};
- /* If we got an ACK, return true so the caller knows to expect more responses
- * from the IPC server. We do this before decrementing replies_expected because
- * ACKs are not going to be included in that value.
- *
- * Note that we cannot do the same kind of status checking here that we do in
- * ipc_pacemakerd.c. The ACK message we receive does not necessarily contain
- * a status attribute. That is, we may receive this:
- *
- * <ack function="crmd_remote_proxy_cb" line="556"/>
- *
- * Instead of this:
- *
- * <ack function="dispatch_controller_ipc" line="391" status="112"/>
- */
if (pcmk__str_eq(crm_element_name(reply), "ack", pcmk__str_none)) {
- return true; // More replies needed
+ /* ACKs are trivial responses that do not count toward expected replies,
+ * and do not have all the fields that validation requires, so skip that
+ * processing.
+ */
+ return private->replies_expected > 0;
}
if (private->replies_expected > 0) {
@@ -344,18 +332,15 @@ static int
send_controller_request(pcmk_ipc_api_t *api, xmlNode *request,
bool reply_is_expected)
{
- int rc;
-
if (crm_element_value(request, XML_ATTR_REFERENCE) == NULL) {
return EINVAL;
}
- rc = pcmk__send_ipc_request(api, request);
- if ((rc == pcmk_rc_ok) && reply_is_expected) {
+ if (reply_is_expected) {
struct controld_api_private_s *private = api->api_data;
private->replies_expected++;
}
- return rc;
+ return pcmk__send_ipc_request(api, request);
}
static xmlNode *
--
2.41.0