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

ProxyConnectConnectionFactoryFilter leaks connection in case of errors #1002

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Apr 9, 2020

Conversation

idelpivnitskiy
Copy link
Member

@idelpivnitskiy idelpivnitskiy commented Apr 4, 2020

Motivation:

In case of any error or cancellation, ProxyConnectConnectionFactoryFilter
does not close the connection to the proxy.

Modifications:

  • Add tests to verify different failure scenarios for
    ProxyConnectConnectionFactoryFilter;
  • Close connection when CONNECT request or SSL handshake failures;
  • Do not drain the response payload body in case of error, because the
    connection will be closed anyway;

Result:

ProxyConnectConnectionFactoryFilter does not leak connections.

Motivation:

In case of any error or cancellation, `ProxyConnectConnectionFactoryFilter`
does not close the connection to the proxy.

Modifications:

- Add tests to verify different failure scenarios for
`ProxyConnectConnectionFactoryFilter`;
- Close connection when `CONNECT` request or SSL handshake failures or
if a `Single` is cancelled;

Result:

`ProxyConnectConnectionFactoryFilter` does not leak connections.
// Close recently created connection in case of any error while it connects to the proxy
// or cancellation:
.recoverWith(t -> c.closeAsync().concat(failed(t)))
.whenCancel(() -> c.closeAsync().subscribe());
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

we really do not know if the cancel has come due to the operation was canceled by the user or due to some operators sending a cancel for the previous source when they move on to the next source (eg: concat()).

Can any operator cancel after success? IIUC they cancel the previous source only for non-success/non-complete cases.

LMK if I need to revert whenFinally here to prevent closure on cancel after success.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can any operator cancel after success?

Yes they do, consider this connFactory.newConnection().concat(executor.timer(1, MILLISECONDS) (eg: to add a delay to respond to connect)

concat() uses SequentialCancellable which cancels the old Cancellable when the new Cancellable is received, which in this case will be after the successful completion of connFactory.newConnection().

More generally, we should not assume anywhere that cancel is only received before success() as Cancellable and Subscriber code paths are concurrent.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looking at SequentialCancellable and TBH don't see where it cancels the old Cancellable. When the new Cancellable is received it may close the new one immediately if the oldVal was already canceled via SequentialCancellable#cancel().

More generally, we should not assume anywhere that cancel is only received before success() as Cancellable and Subscriber code paths are concurrent.

Agreed. I just thought that it doesn't matter when proxy filter sees cancel: before or after onSuccess we should close the connection if we saw that someone is not interested in the result anymore.

Btw, after #1005, should it be afterCancel or afterFinally?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

whenCancel will unconditionally execute the callback when cancel is called regardless if the connection has been delivered downstream. If we have already delivered the connection we shouldn't later close it (regardless if someone cancels or not). In addition to this being the expected control flow, the RS spec has some rules which discuss cancel being a no-op after a terminal signal is delivered [1][2].

afterFinally(SingleTerminalSignalConsumer<T> doFinally) happens to enforce "only a single callback will be executed" but may still result in invoking the onCancel() call back and also calling the downstream Subscriber#onSuccess(...) for the following reasons:

  • Subscription can be invoked on a different thread
  • Data/terminal signals may still be delivered after cancel [3]

So afterFinally is an improvement over afterCancel, but still isn't ideal because we may deliver a closed object (and/or invoke closeAsync() concurrently).

[1] https://github.com/reactive-streams/reactive-streams-jvm/blob/v1.0.3/README.md#1.6

If a Publisher signals either onError or onComplete on a Subscriber, that Subscriber’s Subscription MUST be considered cancelled.

[2] https://github.com/reactive-streams/reactive-streams-jvm/blob/v1.0.3/README.md#3.7

After the Subscription is cancelled, additional Subscription.cancel() MUST be NOPs.

[3] https://github.com/reactive-streams/reactive-streams-jvm/blob/v1.0.3/README.md#2.8

A Subscriber MUST be prepared to receive one or more onNext signals after having called Subscription.cancel() if there are still requested elements pending [see 3.12]. Subscription.cancel() does not guarantee to perform the underlying cleaning operations immediately.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

TBH don't see where it cancels the old Cancellable.

Aah, you are correct. I misread under an older assumption that we cancel() the previous Cancellable.

Anyways, for other reasons me and Scott mention, unconditional close() upon cancel() isn't correct.

Copy link
Member Author

@idelpivnitskiy idelpivnitskiy Apr 8, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Updated to use whenFinally d2bf22f afterFinally cfd0117

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So afterFinally is an improvement over afterCancel, but still isn't ideal because we may deliver a closed object (and/or invoke closeAsync() concurrently).

Ok ya this seems to be a problem. Can we remove the close-on-cancel part for now?

Connection lifetime is anyways a problem in such situation out of the context of this filter as mentioned in #1002 (comment).

Lets fix the obvious issue of leaking connection for non-200 responses and then handle lifecycle on cancel/early termination later.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Removed in 57e470b and created #1010.

}
});
private Single<C> handleConnectResponse(final C connection, final StreamingHttpResponse response) {
try {
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Moved this logic to the different method because nested try blocks make code indentation awful.

// Close recently created connection in case of any error while it connects to the proxy
// or cancellation:
.recoverWith(t -> c.closeAsync().concat(failed(t)))
.whenCancel(() -> c.closeAsync().subscribe());
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

whenCancel will unconditionally execute the callback when cancel is called regardless if the connection has been delivered downstream. If we have already delivered the connection we shouldn't later close it (regardless if someone cancels or not). In addition to this being the expected control flow, the RS spec has some rules which discuss cancel being a no-op after a terminal signal is delivered [1][2].

afterFinally(SingleTerminalSignalConsumer<T> doFinally) happens to enforce "only a single callback will be executed" but may still result in invoking the onCancel() call back and also calling the downstream Subscriber#onSuccess(...) for the following reasons:

  • Subscription can be invoked on a different thread
  • Data/terminal signals may still be delivered after cancel [3]

So afterFinally is an improvement over afterCancel, but still isn't ideal because we may deliver a closed object (and/or invoke closeAsync() concurrently).

[1] https://github.com/reactive-streams/reactive-streams-jvm/blob/v1.0.3/README.md#1.6

If a Publisher signals either onError or onComplete on a Subscriber, that Subscriber’s Subscription MUST be considered cancelled.

[2] https://github.com/reactive-streams/reactive-streams-jvm/blob/v1.0.3/README.md#3.7

After the Subscription is cancelled, additional Subscription.cancel() MUST be NOPs.

[3] https://github.com/reactive-streams/reactive-streams-jvm/blob/v1.0.3/README.md#2.8

A Subscriber MUST be prepared to receive one or more onNext signals after having called Subscription.cancel() if there are still requested elements pending [see 3.12]. Subscription.cancel() does not guarantee to perform the underlying cleaning operations immediately.

@idelpivnitskiy
Copy link
Member Author

Build failed because of an issue with docker.

@servicetalk-bot test this please

@idelpivnitskiy
Copy link
Member Author

jdk8 build failed with timeout

@servicetalk-bot test this please

Copy link
Collaborator

@NiteshKant NiteshKant left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM after these comments

.flatMap(response -> handleConnectResponse(c, response))
// Close recently created connection in case of any error while it connects to the proxy:
.recoverWith(t -> c.closeAsync().concat(failed(t)));
} catch (Throwable t) {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we are being overly paranoid here about the calls to c.request() or c.connect() throwing. Any method returning an asynchronous source is not expected to throw. Having said that it is not a big deal so its ok as it is, I will leave it to you to take a call on this.

@idelpivnitskiy idelpivnitskiy merged commit ebb4931 into apple:master Apr 9, 2020
@idelpivnitskiy idelpivnitskiy deleted the proxy-close-connection branch April 9, 2020 01:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants