-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
ROX-33199: unlink inode tracking #429
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -227,3 +227,55 @@ def test_unmonitored_mounted_dir(test_container, test_file, server): | |
| file=fut, host_path=test_file) | ||
|
|
||
| server.wait_events([event]) | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def test_probe_inode_map(monitored_dir, ignored_dir, server): | ||
| """ | ||
| TODO[ROX-33222]: This test won't work when hardlinks are handled properly. | ||
|
|
||
| This test demonstrates that the current implementation removes the inode | ||
| from the kernel map correctly, as a second unmonitored hardlink deletion | ||
| is not noticed. | ||
|
|
||
| Args: | ||
| monitored_dir: Temporary directory path that is monitored by fact. | ||
| ignored_dir: Temporary directory path that is NOT monitored by fact. | ||
| server: The server instance to communicate with. | ||
| """ | ||
| process = Process.from_proc() | ||
|
|
||
| # File Under Test - original file in monitored directory | ||
| original_file = os.path.join(monitored_dir, 'original.txt') | ||
|
|
||
| # Create the original file | ||
| with open(original_file, 'w') as f: | ||
| f.write('This is a test') | ||
|
|
||
| # Create two hardlinks in the unmonitored directory | ||
| hardlink_file1 = os.path.join(ignored_dir, 'hardlink1.txt') | ||
| os.link(original_file, hardlink_file1) | ||
|
|
||
| hardlink_file2 = os.path.join(ignored_dir, 'hardlink2.txt') | ||
| os.link(original_file, hardlink_file2) | ||
|
|
||
| e = Event(process=process, event_type=EventType.CREATION, | ||
| file=original_file, host_path=original_file) | ||
|
|
||
| server.wait_events([e]) | ||
|
|
||
| os.remove(hardlink_file1) | ||
| os.remove(hardlink_file2) | ||
|
Comment on lines
+251
to
+267
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This seems to be flaky. The inode of the original file may not have landed in the probe's map before we start deleting. I will split the test to wait for the CREATION event before going on with the unlinks.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Done in fb7d100
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This shows that we have a bit of a problem in our code, if a file is created and removed we will miss the host path for it, I wonder if that is related to a check we do on the filesystem and if we should just ignore that and proceed to add the host path regardless of whether we see it in the filesystem or not 🤔 I think I originally put that check in place because I was worried inodes for a file that was removed would linger if we missed the unlink event, but I'm fairly certain the scan should take care of cleaning up. |
||
|
|
||
| # Create a guard file to ensure all events have been processed | ||
| guard_file = os.path.join(monitored_dir, 'guard.txt') | ||
| with open(guard_file, 'w') as f: | ||
| f.write('guard') | ||
|
|
||
| events = [ | ||
| Event(process=process, event_type=EventType.UNLINK, | ||
| file=hardlink_file1, host_path=original_file), | ||
| Event(process=process, event_type=EventType.CREATION, | ||
| file=guard_file, host_path=guard_file), | ||
| ] | ||
|
|
||
| server.wait_events(events) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we want to have a metric for when the removal fails? It shouldn't happen, but it would be nice to know if it does.