ChallengeThe race condition in the TCP stack, answer

time to read 3 min | 410 words

In my previous post, I discussed a problem in missing data over TCP connection that happened in a racy manner, only every few hundred runs. As it turns out, there is a simple way to make the code run into the problem every single time.

The full code for the repro can be found here.

Change these lines:

image

And voila, you will consistently run into the problem .  Wait, run that by me again, what is going on here?

As it turns out, the issue is in the server, more specifically, here and here. We use a StreamReader to read the first line from the client, do some processing, and then hand it to the ProcessConnection method, which also uses a StreamReader. More significantly, it uses a different StreamReader.

Why is that significant? Well, because of this, the StreamReader has buffers, by default, that are 1KB in size. So here is what happens in the case above: we send a single packet to the server, and when the first StreamReader reads from the stream, it fills the buffer with the two messages. But since there is a line break between them, when we call ReadLineAsync, we actually only get the first one.

Then, we when get to the ProcessConnection method, we have another StreamReader, which also reads from the stream, but the second message had already been read (and is waiting in the first StreamReader buffer), so we are waiting for more information from the client, which will never come.

So how come it sort of works if we do this in two separate calls? Well, it is all about the speed. In most cases, when we split it into two separate calls, the server socket has only the first message in there when the first StreamReader runs, so the second StreamReader is successful in reading the second line. But in some cases, the client manages being fast enough and sending both messages to the server before the server can read them, and voila, we have the same behavior, only much more unpredictable.

The key problem was that it wasn’t obvious we were reading too much from the stream, and until we figured that one out, we were looking in a completely wrong direction. 

More posts in "Challenge" series:

  1. (06 May 2022) Spot the optimization–solution
  2. (05 May 2022) Spot the optimization
  3. (06 Apr 2022) Why is this code broken?
  4. (16 Dec 2021) Find the slow down–answer
  5. (15 Dec 2021) Find the slow down
  6. (03 Nov 2021) The code review bug that gives me nightmares–The fix
  7. (02 Nov 2021) The code review bug that gives me nightmares–the issue
  8. (01 Nov 2021) The code review bug that gives me nightmares
  9. (16 Jun 2021) Detecting livelihood in a distributed cluster
  10. (21 Apr 2020) Generate matching shard id–answer
  11. (20 Apr 2020) Generate matching shard id
  12. (02 Jan 2020) Spot the bug in the stream
  13. (28 Sep 2018) The loop that leaks–Answer
  14. (27 Sep 2018) The loop that leaks
  15. (03 Apr 2018) The invisible concurrency bug–Answer
  16. (02 Apr 2018) The invisible concurrency bug
  17. (31 Jan 2018) Find the bug in the fix–answer
  18. (30 Jan 2018) Find the bug in the fix
  19. (19 Jan 2017) What does this code do?
  20. (26 Jul 2016) The race condition in the TCP stack, answer
  21. (25 Jul 2016) The race condition in the TCP stack
  22. (28 Apr 2015) What is the meaning of this change?
  23. (26 Sep 2013) Spot the bug
  24. (27 May 2013) The problem of locking down tasks…
  25. (17 Oct 2011) Minimum number of round trips
  26. (23 Aug 2011) Recent Comments with Future Posts
  27. (02 Aug 2011) Modifying execution approaches
  28. (29 Apr 2011) Stop the leaks
  29. (23 Dec 2010) This code should never hit production
  30. (17 Dec 2010) Your own ThreadLocal
  31. (03 Dec 2010) Querying relative information with RavenDB
  32. (29 Jun 2010) Find the bug
  33. (23 Jun 2010) Dynamically dynamic
  34. (28 Apr 2010) What killed the application?
  35. (19 Mar 2010) What does this code do?
  36. (04 Mar 2010) Robust enumeration over external code
  37. (16 Feb 2010) Premature optimization, and all of that…
  38. (12 Feb 2010) Efficient querying
  39. (10 Feb 2010) Find the resource leak
  40. (21 Oct 2009) Can you spot the bug?
  41. (18 Oct 2009) Why is this wrong?
  42. (17 Oct 2009) Write the check in comment
  43. (15 Sep 2009) NH Prof Exporting Reports
  44. (02 Sep 2009) The lazy loaded inheritance many to one association OR/M conundrum
  45. (01 Sep 2009) Why isn’t select broken?
  46. (06 Aug 2009) Find the bug fixes
  47. (26 May 2009) Find the bug
  48. (14 May 2009) multi threaded test failure
  49. (11 May 2009) The regex that doesn’t match
  50. (24 Mar 2009) probability based selection
  51. (13 Mar 2009) C# Rewriting
  52. (18 Feb 2009) write a self extracting program
  53. (04 Sep 2008) Don't stop with the first DSL abstraction
  54. (02 Aug 2008) What is the problem?
  55. (28 Jul 2008) What does this code do?
  56. (26 Jul 2008) Find the bug fix
  57. (05 Jul 2008) Find the deadlock
  58. (03 Jul 2008) Find the bug
  59. (02 Jul 2008) What is wrong with this code
  60. (05 Jun 2008) why did the tests fail?
  61. (27 May 2008) Striving for better syntax
  62. (13 Apr 2008) calling generics without the generic type
  63. (12 Apr 2008) The directory tree
  64. (24 Mar 2008) Find the version
  65. (21 Jan 2008) Strongly typing weakly typed code
  66. (28 Jun 2007) Windsor Null Object Dependency Facility