DELETE on a paused sandbox can be undone by an in-flight resume: sandbox ends up running after DELETE returns 204

Summary

If a sandbox is paused and a DELETE arrives while a resume for the same sandbox is already in flight, the API returns:

• DELETE /sandboxes/{id} → 204 (success, and the paused snapshot representation is soft-deleted), and
• POST /sandboxes/{id}/resume → 201,

after which GET /sandboxes/{id} reports running. The client is told the sandbox was deleted, but the sandbox is alive.

Root cause

A paused sandbox has no running-store record: its only representation is a snapshot row. That produces two independent problems:

1. Kill has nowhere to record its intent. DELETE calls RemoveSandbox → sandboxStore.StartRemoving, which reads the running store and returns ErrNotFound because there is no record. No tombstone or removal marker is written. The handler then proceeds to deleteSnapshot (packages/api/internal/handlers/sandbox_kill.go), which soft-deletes the snapshot env (UPDATE envs SET deleted_at = NOW()) and returns 204.

2. Resume publishes unconditionally. A resume that already passed its snapshot fetch spends seconds in node restore. When it completes, CreateSandbox calls sandboxStore.Add, which is a lockless, unconditional SET+SADD (packages/api/internal/sandbox/storage/redis/operations.go, source comment: "Add is lockless"). It does not check for a delete intent — none was recorded — so the sandbox is published as running.

This is the same class of stale-decision race that was fixed elsewhere in the storage layer: writes there are atomic (Lua scripts, per-sandbox locks, ExpectExecutionID), and the catalog uses server-side compare-and-delete. Add is the one publication point that is neither locked nor guarded.

Reproduction

The race is in the API control plane and does not depend on a particular backend. Trigger it by deleting while a resume is still restoring:

1. Create a sandbox and pause it:

   POST /sandboxes            -> 201
   POST /sandboxes/{id}/pause -> 204   (snapshot written)
   

2. Start a resume and, while it is still in flight (the restore takes seconds for a cold/large snapshot), issue the delete:

   POST /sandboxes/{id}/resume   (async)
      DELETE /sandboxes/{id}     -> 204   (snapshot soft-deleted, running record absent)
      resume completes           -> 201
   GET /sandboxes/{id}           -> 200 state=running
   

3. The client received 204 for the delete, yet the sandbox is running again.

Deterministic across repeated runs. Control: with no resume in flight, the same DELETE returns 204 and GET returns 404 — so the race between delete and the in-flight resume publication is the cause, not paused-delete itself.

Suggested fix

Record a removal tombstone even when there is no running record, and make publication check it atomically:

1. On DELETE of a paused sandbox, write a per-sandbox removal marker atomically (a Redis key, or a deleted_at/tombstone on the snapshot row) together with deleting the snapshot.
2. Replace the lockless Add SET+SADD with a server-side script that rejects the write when the sandbox has a tombstone (or when it is not in an acceptable state), mirroring startTransitionScript and the catalog compare-and-delete.
3. Alternatively, make resume's final publication take the same per-sandbox lock as StartRemoving and re-check the current state before publishing.

An accepted kill must be irreversible: a concurrent resume must not be able to publish afterward.

Impact

A user-facing DELETE reports success while the sandbox continues to run — and its snapshot has been deleted — breaking kill semantics and leaving the sandbox running until its timeout, with the client believing it is gone.

Start with packages/api/internal/handlers/sandbox_kill.go and the Redis operations in packages/api/internal/sandbox/storage/redis/operations.go; trace StartRemoving, deleteSnapshot, and the resume path through CreateSandbox and Add. Reproduce the paused-delete/resume race, then verify that an accepted DELETE cannot be followed by a published running sandbox, using the existing transition and catalog atomic-operation patterns as reference.