ChallengeFind the bug
The following code contains a bug that would only occur under rare situations, can you figure out what is the bug?
More posts in "Challenge" series:
- (04 Jan 2023) what does this code print?
- (14 Dec 2022) What does this code print?
- (01 Jul 2022) Find the stack smash bug… – answer
- (30 Jun 2022) Find the stack smash bug…
- (03 Jun 2022) Spot the data corruption
- (06 May 2022) Spot the optimization–solution
- (05 May 2022) Spot the optimization
- (06 Apr 2022) Why is this code broken?
- (16 Dec 2021) Find the slow down–answer
- (15 Dec 2021) Find the slow down
- (03 Nov 2021) The code review bug that gives me nightmares–The fix
- (02 Nov 2021) The code review bug that gives me nightmares–the issue
- (01 Nov 2021) The code review bug that gives me nightmares
- (16 Jun 2021) Detecting livelihood in a distributed cluster
- (21 Apr 2020) Generate matching shard id–answer
- (20 Apr 2020) Generate matching shard id
- (02 Jan 2020) Spot the bug in the stream
- (28 Sep 2018) The loop that leaks–Answer
- (27 Sep 2018) The loop that leaks
- (03 Apr 2018) The invisible concurrency bug–Answer
- (02 Apr 2018) The invisible concurrency bug
- (31 Jan 2018) Find the bug in the fix–answer
- (30 Jan 2018) Find the bug in the fix
- (19 Jan 2017) What does this code do?
- (26 Jul 2016) The race condition in the TCP stack, answer
- (25 Jul 2016) The race condition in the TCP stack
- (28 Apr 2015) What is the meaning of this change?
- (26 Sep 2013) Spot the bug
- (27 May 2013) The problem of locking down tasks…
- (17 Oct 2011) Minimum number of round trips
- (23 Aug 2011) Recent Comments with Future Posts
- (02 Aug 2011) Modifying execution approaches
- (29 Apr 2011) Stop the leaks
- (23 Dec 2010) This code should never hit production
- (17 Dec 2010) Your own ThreadLocal
- (03 Dec 2010) Querying relative information with RavenDB
- (29 Jun 2010) Find the bug
- (23 Jun 2010) Dynamically dynamic
- (28 Apr 2010) What killed the application?
- (19 Mar 2010) What does this code do?
- (04 Mar 2010) Robust enumeration over external code
- (16 Feb 2010) Premature optimization, and all of that…
- (12 Feb 2010) Efficient querying
- (10 Feb 2010) Find the resource leak
- (21 Oct 2009) Can you spot the bug?
- (18 Oct 2009) Why is this wrong?
- (17 Oct 2009) Write the check in comment
- (15 Sep 2009) NH Prof Exporting Reports
- (02 Sep 2009) The lazy loaded inheritance many to one association OR/M conundrum
- (01 Sep 2009) Why isn’t select broken?
- (06 Aug 2009) Find the bug fixes
- (26 May 2009) Find the bug
- (14 May 2009) multi threaded test failure
- (11 May 2009) The regex that doesn’t match
- (24 Mar 2009) probability based selection
- (13 Mar 2009) C# Rewriting
- (18 Feb 2009) write a self extracting program
- (04 Sep 2008) Don't stop with the first DSL abstraction
- (02 Aug 2008) What is the problem?
- (28 Jul 2008) What does this code do?
- (26 Jul 2008) Find the bug fix
- (05 Jul 2008) Find the deadlock
- (03 Jul 2008) Find the bug
- (02 Jul 2008) What is wrong with this code
- (05 Jun 2008) why did the tests fail?
- (27 May 2008) Striving for better syntax
- (13 Apr 2008) calling generics without the generic type
- (12 Apr 2008) The directory tree
- (24 Mar 2008) Find the version
- (21 Jan 2008) Strongly typing weakly typed code
- (28 Jun 2007) Windsor Null Object Dependency Facility
isNewDatabase = write.Length == 0;
There doesn't appear to be locking. In rare cases you may have 2 threads call CreateFromScratch() at that same time.
No, I won't. the writer FileStream ensures that only one thread access this code.
Check the length of the reader before validating the signature ?
race condition in the 1st two lines between checking for the existence of the directory and creating it.
Are the permissions to the Directory ok?
Why the weird ==false check and not using if(! construct? THen again, AFAIK the Directory.Create will do nothing when it already exists. So the check is useless.
Not knowing what CreateFromScratch does I would guess that you don't want to TryReadingFromExistingFile when isNewDatabase.
nope. The .Net CreateDirectory silently NOPs if the directory is already present (the if() is superfluous).
that's Ayende's coding style.
I like it.
Where do you close the writer?
If the file is deleted whilst the writer is open then OpenReader will fail (assuming open reader is creating a new file stream).
I've parsed this a few times and can't see the bug. I write similar code often so I'll be checking back to see what you reveal as the answer in case I've fallen into the same trap!
I suspect the writer is module level and left open so that data can be streamed to file. It has read-level sharing.
the check on writer.Length == 0 doesn't sit right with me. It looks like you want to check to see if the file was newly created then call the CreateFromScratch().
I'd have elected for:
storageFile = Path.Combine...
isNewDatabase = File.Exists(storageFile);
writer = ...
But that's just semantics, I don't think that's the cause of any bug...
Two instances of the same application implementing Raven DB could be a problem if started up around the same time.
Not sure if you'consider it a bug since you kinda expect an exception anyway, but
if (new Guid(binaryReader.ReadBytes(16)) != HeaderSignatureGuid)
will generate an ArgumentException when the file exists but is not at least 16 bytes long.
If the path parameter is a drive letter (eg "C:") then Path.Combine won't create a valid path. You'll get "C:storage.raven" instead of "C:\storage.raven".
(unless of course you're appending the slash in the caller.)
The race condition is not between the first two lines, but between creating the directory and creating the file.
Directory.CreateDirectory throws an IOException when the directory is read-only or not empty.
No, that is okay, we assume that len = 0 is always okay.
Ignore race conditions, as other have pointed out, it will work, but the problem isn't with a race condition.
No, bad permissions would cause it to crash with an expected error.
Actually, that is okay, I always want to read from the file. CreateFromScratch just set things up for me.
The writer is close is the Dispose() method.
Ignore any race conditions, they aren't required to show the bug.
That is not a problem, only one instance of RavenDB can own a file at a given time.
Thanks, that is expected and not what I meant.
You don't check if you have enough space on disk before creating file. This may result in a IOException if the disk is full.
I don't worry about that, I'll get the appropriate error then.
Why is FileShare.Delete allowed? Writing to a file that is allowed to be deleted, that looks like a bug to me ...
That means that you can delete the file, which is important for some scenarios (cleanup, mostly).
That is not a bug
If path wasn't an existing directory but was an existing FILE then the CreateDirectory would throw IOException.
Good catch, but that still isn't it
Here is a big hint, think C++
I'm not sure if you're aiming for some sort of backward compatibility in your storage file, but if so, I would assume you'd rather compare the version as
if (version > Version)
Not it either
You are throwing an exception from a constructor. So I suppose you could have a partially constructed object - not sure what impact this would have on the disposal of the writer, for instance.
Yes, you are right, what is the result?
Well, assuming you are using a using block around your use of TransactionStorage, I suspect the writer will stay alive and thus lock the DB. I suspect GC would get it eventually – I haven't tested and thus don’t know for sure.
You likely should change your Dispose method to handle partially constructed objects (ie don’t assume everything is initialized correctly) and then call the Dispose from a catch block in your constructor.
Doing file IO in a ctor is a shooting offense. Wouldn't be surprised if that is a factor.
Ding, ding ding!
You got it.
The dispose is actually never called, because we aren't completing the ctor.
Awesome, especially for the "Think C++" hint. I wonder why we consider exception-safety differently when we're not in C++.