apache / apache/cloudstack

GenericDaoBase.persist() leaves the caller's transaction unbalanced when an insert throws

オープン
#13,905 コメント 1 件 リアクション 0 件 担当者 0 名 GitHub で見る
bug
主要言語
Java
スター
3.1k
フォーク
1.4k
平均マージ
6日 19時間
マージ済み PR(30日)
32

説明

### problem

Split out of #13399 at @DaanHoogland's request.

`GenericDaoBase.persist()` does not own a transaction, it joins the caller's via `TransactionLegacy.currentTxn()` and calls `txn.start()`, which pushes a `START_TXN` nesting level. On the `SQLException` path it never reaches `txn.commit()`, and there is no `finally`, so that nesting level is leaked:

```java
final TransactionLegacy txn = TransactionLegacy.currentTxn(); // the CALLER's transaction
try {
txn.start(); // pushes a START_TXN nesting level
...
pstmt.executeUpdate(); // throws
...
txn.commit(); // never reached
} catch (final SQLException e) {
logger.error("DB Exception on: " + pstmt, e);
handleEntityExistsException(e); // throws EntityExistsException
throw new CloudRuntimeException("Unable to persist on DB, due to: " + e.getLocalizedMessage());
}
// no finally, the pushed nesting level is never released
```

**Consequence:** the caller's own `commit()` then finds the transaction unbalanced and silently no-ops, logging only:

```
WARN [db.Transaction.Transaction] txn: Commit called when it is not a transaction:
```

(`TransactionLegacy.commit()` — `if (!_txn) { LOGGER.warn(...); return false; }`)

Everything in that transaction is discarded while the caller believes it committed.

**Why it matters beyond one call site:** callers that deliberately catch `EntityExistsException` in order to log-and-continue cannot actually continue, because the enclosing transaction is already unrecoverable. `UsageManagerImpl.createHelperRecord()` is one such caller, and in #13399 this is what converts a single constraint violation into *permanent* usage-aggregation failure rather than one skipped record.

### versions

Observed on CloudStack 4.22.1.0 (EL9 packages), MySQL 8.x / InnoDB.

This is a code-level defect in `framework/db` rather than an environment-specific one; the code path is not version-specific and hypervisor/storage/network are not relevant.

### The steps to reproduce the bug

1. On 4.22.1.0 with the Usage Server enabled, deploy an instance. Its ROOT volume produces a `VOLUME.CREATE` usage event carrying `vm_id`.
2. `UsageManagerImpl.createVolumeHelperEvent()` performs two `persist()` calls sharing `(volume_id, created)`; the second violates `usage_volume`'s unique key (see #13399).
3. `createHelperRecord()` catches the resulting `EntityExistsException` and logs a warning, intending to continue.
4. Observe `txn: Commit called when it is not a transaction` shortly afterwards, and that the `processed` flags set for that batch of events in `cloud_usage.usage_event` were never committed.

Any caller that hits a constraint violation inside a transaction it owns should show the same behaviour, #13399 is simply a case where it happens on every VM deployment.

### What to do about it?

Release the nesting level in a `finally`, and/or mark the transaction rollback-only so callers receive a real failure instead of a silent no-op.

Either way this needs someone familiar with `TransactionLegacy`'s nesting semantics, since `GenericDaoBase` backs every DAO in the codebase. I'm raising it rather than proposing a patch.

コントリビューションガイド

コントリビューションガイドを開く

調査の方向性

まず framework/db 内の GenericDaoBase.persist() と TransactionLegacy のネストおよび commit の動作を追跡し、次に再現経路として UsageManagerImpl.createHelperRecord() と createVolumeHelperEvent() を調べてください。insert の失敗によって呼び出し元のトランザクションが不整合な状態のまま残ったり、その後の commit が暗黙に no-op になったりしないことを確認し、EntityExistsException を処理する呼び出し元が意図した失敗動作を受け取ることも確認してください。

索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。

評価

技術スタック
java
領域
backend, database
issue の種類
バグ
難易度
4/5
見積もり時間
3〜5日
活発さ
活発
明瞭さ
おおむね明確
初心者へのやさしさ
48/100

新しい issue をメールで受け取る

初心者向けの GitHub issue を短くまとめたダイジェスト。