storage: widening Raft snapshot spanning merge may clobber newer range via subsumption

[tbg]

I was thinking about the safety properties of preemptive snapshots, learner snapshots, and Raft snapshots (for https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/pull/35786 and https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/pull/35787) with and without merges today and I arrived at an example which I think we mishandle. The TL;DR is that I think that we'll accept a Raft snapshot that extends an initialized replica and "overwrites" a newer right hand side that was merged in but then split out again (and that may have new data).

• initially s{1,2,3} have r1=[a,c)
• the replica on s2 is removed
• r1 merges its right neighbor r2=[c,d)
• s2/r1 is re-added (no preemptive snap) (so it needs a Raft snapshot)
• a Raft snapshot is generated (say on s1)
• r1 splits into r1=[a,c) and r3=[c,d)
• s2 automatically has a replica s2/r3 which catches up ([c,d) was empty on s2) (s2 still has its stale replica for r1=[a,c) and an incoming Raft snapshot to it with bounds [a,d))
• a number of commands are proposed on r3 (in particular, they commit and apply on s2/r3).
• the snapshot for r1 is fully received at s2. We want this snapshot to be rejected, for it spans [a,d) and thus overlaps the replica of r3=[c,d) which has new writes
• but I think we would actually apply the snapshot: the existing replica s2/r1 is initialized and so we hit the early return in 1. Applying the snapshot, we GC the RHS and write a tombstone with nextReplicaID=infinity, effectively taking that replica down. And then the LHS catches up across the split trigger and likely crashes the node permanently, because the RHS replica can't be instantiated any more thanks to the range tombstone.

This problem would be avoided if (edit: this statement about generations is wrong) ~we checked the generations of all subsumed replicas before handing the snapshot to Raft (i.e. in canApplySnapshot), dropping the snapshot unless they're all smaller than the snapshot's generation. The problem would also be avoided if~ we didn't allow existing replicas to change their replicaID in place. That is, upon trying to apply the last snapshot, the existing replica would be gc'ed before checking whether the snapshot could be applied to a new, uninitialized replica. This uninitialized replica would then reject the snapshot based on its overlapping another replica. In both cases the result would be another snapshot being sent.

I'd appreciate if someone (@bdarnell or @nvanbenschoten?) gave this a close reading to check my understanding.

[tbg]

On a meta level, I think the comment that "Raft snapshots to initialized replicas can't be refused" which first originated in https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/pull/28683/files isn't quite right. We can always refuse a Raft snapshot, the question is whether there will ever be a snapshot for that range that we won't drop.

I think there's really only one situation in which refusing the snapshot would end us in a loop, and it's the situation outlined in https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/pull/28533/commits/b728fcd384cf2e6497f7aa84c959aad1e2edfd9a:

Raft snapshots can "widen" an existing replica. Consider a merge where one of the LHS replicas goes offline immediately before the merge commits. Before this replica comes back online, the leader truncates the log. When this range comes back online, it will receive a Raft snapshot that postdates the merge application.

To apply this snapshot, the receiving replica needs to susume its copy of the RHS during snapshot application. Note that it is guaranteed to have a copy of the RHS, as merges cannot commit unless the ranges are collocated and the replica GC queue is careful to never GC a replica that could be required for subsumption.

Note that in this scenario the replicaID didn't change.

[tbg]

I was wrong in thinking that the generations are helpful here. They generally only make sense when comparing generations for the same rangeID. This is because the RHS of a split always starts out at generation zero. If the RHS inherited the generation of the LHS, maybe something can work but I haven't thought about it.

[bdarnell]

That looks right to me.

My initial sense is that the in-place changes of replica ID have always been a little sketchy and we should aim to eliminate them as much as possible. We should try to go through a GC/snapshot cycle instead of reusing the data that is already there. (much of the need for in-place replica ID changes came from a time when the GC/snapshot processes were more expensive, and replicas that needed GC would linger for a longer time)

[nvanbenschoten]

If the RHS inherited the generation of the LHS, maybe something can work but I haven't thought about it.

I figured this was already how this worked. I would expect that both sides of a split would get the generation lhs.gen + 1 and the result of a merge would get the generation max(lhs.gen, rhs.gen)+1. This way, we could compare the generation for any key ranges that overlap to determine who is new and who is stale. We could then immediately GC stale Ranges and reject stale snapshots. I haven't thought about this enought to understand the challenges here though.

[tbg]

I sent PR #36654 to change the semantics -- I hope we can get this in for 19.1. Let's discuss there.

[tbg]

cc @danhhz, this is the issue I talked about yesterday but couldn't find on the spot

[tbg]

Here's the example in schematic form, I find this easier to follow along with.

   a      b      c      d
S1
n1 |--1----------|-2----|
n2 |--1--(rmvd)--|
n3 |--1----------|-2----|

S2
n1 |--1----------|-2----|
n2 |--1--(rmvd)--|
n3 |--1----------|-2----|

S3
n1 |--1-----------------|
n2 |--1--(rmvd)--|        <-- r1@S3 snap incoming
n3 |--1-----------------|

S4
n1 |--1----------|-3----|
n2 |--1--(rmvd)--|        <-- r1@S3 snap incoming
n3 |--1----------|-3----|

S5
n1 |--1----------|-3----|
n2 |--1--(rmvd)--|-3----| <-- r1@S3 snap incoming
n3 |--1----------|-3----|

S6
n1 |--1----------|-3----|
n2 |--r1@S3-------------| <-- data lost from r3
n3 |--1----------|-3----|

The code that erroneously accepts r1@S3 is

https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/blob/f8be5091ee4324542d18b2f6bb93ef9e6ec139eb/pkg/storage/store_snapshot.go#L459-L472

Looking at the example one could argue that maybe the creation of r3@S3 should have gotten blocked instead, but it can only be blocked once we know that we're receiving r1@S3 which we simply may not know for a while (for the usual distributed systems reasons).

[nvanbenschoten]

I believe this issue was solved by @ajwerner somewhere in the combination of 20201150f4fc83d826045f23c07abba73b1756bc and b2850e12dfb1d436fcf9af522cad142af7501bbc. We no longer allow replicas to change their replica IDs in place (as of 19.2) and we also no longer support preemptive snapshots (as of 20.1).

Should we close this?

[ajwerner]

Yes