[action] [PR:254] [active-standby] Fix default route handler race condition (#254) #267
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What is the motivation for this PR?
Fix the race condition of the default route notification.
This is similar to #104
If there are multiple default route notifications received by linkmgrd, the mux port posts the default route handlers wrapped by strand. But boost asio doesn't guarantee the execution order of the default route handlers, so the final state machine default route could be any intermediate default route state.
For example, for default route notifications like:
[2024-06-20 08:28:57.872911] [warning] MuxPort.cpp:365 handleDefaultRouteState: port: EtherTest01, state db default route state: na
[2024-06-20 08:28:57.872954] [warning] MuxPort.cpp:365 handleDefaultRouteState: port: EtherTest01, state db default route state: ok
The final state machine default route state could be "ok" if the handler for "ok" is executed after the handler for "na".
The final state machine default route state could be "na" if the handler for "ok" is executed before the handler for "na".
Signed-off-by: Longxiang Lyu [email protected]
Work item tracking
Microsoft ADO (number only): 28471183
How did you do it?
post the default route handlers directly through strand instead of using strand::wrap, so the handlers are executed in the same order as the handlers' post order.
How did you verify/test it?
without this PR, UT fail:
Signed-off-by: Longxiang Lyu [email protected]