Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Thu, 01 Mar 2018 08:27:30 -0800] rev 36530
debugcommands: allow sending of simple commands with debugwireproto
Previously, we only had support for low-level "raw" operations.
A goal of `hg debugwireproto` is to allow easily performing
higher-level primitives, such as sending a wire protocol command
and reading its response.
We implement a "command" action that does just this.
Currently, we only support simple commands (those without payloads).
We have basic support for sending command arguments. We don't yet
support sending dictionary arguments. This will be implemented later.
To prove it works, we add tests to test-ssh-proto.t that send some
"listkeys" commands.
Note: we don't observe/report os.read() events because these may not be
deterministic. We instead observe/report the read() and readline()
operations on the bufferedinputpipe. These *should* be deterministic.
Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2406
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Fri, 23 Feb 2018 09:40:12 -0800] rev 36529
wireproto: sort response to listkeys
The listkeys protocol is defined to produce a dictionary.
pushkey.decodekeys() uses a plain dict to hold the decoded results
of the wire protocol response. So order should not matter.
Upcoming tests will verify low-level output of wire protocol
commands and the non-deterministic emitting of listkeys was causing
intermittent failures.
So we make the output of listkeys deterministic.
Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2405
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Thu, 01 Mar 2018 08:24:54 -0800] rev 36528
debugcommands: add debugwireproto command
We currently don't have a low-level mechanism for sending
arbitrary wire protocol commands. Having a generic and robust
mechanism for sending wire protocol commands, examining wire
data, etc would make it vastly easier to test the wire protocol
and debug server operation. This is a problem I've wanted a
solution for numerous times, especially recently as I've been
hacking on a new version of the wire protocol.
This commit establishes a `hg debugwireproto` command for sending
data to a peer.
The command invents a mini language for specifying actions to take.
This will enable a lot of flexibility for issuing commands and testing
variations for how commands are sent.
Right now, we only support low-level raw sends and receives. These
are probably the least valuable commands to intended users of this
command. But they are the most useful commands to implement to
bootstrap the feature (I've chosen to reimplement test-ssh-proto.t
using this command to prove its usefulness).
My eventual goal of `hg debugwireproto` is to allow calling wire
protocol commands with a human-friendly interface. Essentially,
people can type in a command name and arguments and
`hg debugwireproto` will figure out how to send that on the wire.
I'd love to eventually be able to save the server's raw response
to a file. This would allow us to e.g. call "getbundle" wire
protocol commands easily.
test-ssh-proto.t has been updated to use the new command in lieu
of piping directly to a server process. As part of the transition,
test behavior improved. Before, we piped all request data to the
server at once. Now, we have explicit control over the ordering of
operations. e.g. we can send one command, receive its response,
then send another command. This will allow us to more robustly
test race conditions, buffering behavior, etc.
There were some subtle changes in test behavior. For example,
previous behavior would often send trailing newlines to the server.
The new mechanism doesn't treat literal newlines specially and
requires newlines be escaped in the payload.
Because the new logging code is very low level, it is easy to
introduce race conditions in tests. For example, the number of bytes
returned by a read() may vary depending on load. This is why tests
make heavy use of "readline" for consuming data: the result of
that operation should be deterministic and not subject to race
conditions. There are still some uses of "readavailable." However,
those are only for reading from stderr. I was able to reproduce
timing issues with my system under load when using "readavailable"
globally. But if I "readline" to grab stdout, "readavailable"
appears to work deterministically for stderr. I think this is
because the server writes to stderr first. As long as the OS
delivers writes to pipes in the same order they were made, this
should work. If there are timing issues, we can introduce a
mechanism to readline from stderr.
Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2392
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:47:44 -0800] rev 36527
debugcommands: add debugserve command
`hg serve --stdio` requires the exact command argument form
`hg -R <path> serve --stdio` for security reasons. An upcoming
commit will need to start an SSH protocol server process with
custom settings.
This commit creates a `hg debugserve` command for starting servers
with custom options. There are no security restrictions and we can
add options here that aren't appropriate for built-in commands.
We currently only support starting an SSH protocol server using
the process's stdio file descriptors. The server supports logging
its I/O activity to a file descriptor number passed as a command
argument.
Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2464
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Sun, 25 Feb 2018 11:16:09 -0800] rev 36526
wireprotoserver: support logging SSH server I/O to a file descriptor
We will soon introduce a debug command and tests for low-level I/O
behavior of the SSH wire protocol.
To facilitate this, we need to instrument the SSH server so it
can log its I/O as events occur.
We teach the SSH server to convert its stdout and stderr file objects
into file object proxies. We configure these proxies to log to a
file descriptor whose file number is specified via a config option.
The idea is to have a future debug command start the SSH server
process with access to an extra file descriptor that can be used
by the server process to log I/O. Monitoring only the write I/O
will be more robust than monitoring both writes and reads from the
client process because read operations are not deterministic. This
will matter for tests that capture raw I/O activity.
Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2463
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Sat, 24 Feb 2018 12:24:03 -0800] rev 36525
util: enable observing of util.bufferedinputpipe
Our file object proxy is useful. But it doesn't capture all I/O.
The "os" module offers low-level interfaces to various system calls.
For example, os.read() exposes read(2) to read from a file
descriptor.
bufferedinputpipe is special in a few ways. First, it acts as a
proxy of sorts around our [potentially proxied] file object. In
addition, it uses os.read() to satisfy all I/O. This means that
our observer doesn't see notifications for reads on this type.
This is preventing us from properly instrumenting reads on ssh
peers.
This commit teaches bufferedinputpipe to be aware of our
observed file objects. We do this by introducing a class variation
that notifies our observer of os.read() events. Since read()
and readline() bypass os.read(), we also teach this instance
to notify the observer for buffered variations of these reads as
well. We don't report them as actual read() and readline() calls
because these methods are never called on the actual file object
but rather a buffered version of it.
We introduce bufferedinputpipe.__new__ to swap in the new class
if the passed file object is a fileobjectproxy. This makes hooking
up the observer automatic. And it is a zero cost abstraction for
I/O operations on non-proxied file objects.
Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2404
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Sat, 24 Feb 2018 12:22:20 -0800] rev 36524
util: add a file object proxy that can notify observers
There are various places in Mercurial where we may want to
instrument low-level I/O. The use cases I can think of all
involve development-type activities like monitoring the raw
bytes passing through a file (for testing and debugging),
counting the number of I/O function calls (for performance
monitoring), and changing the behavior of I/O function calls
(e.g. simulating a failure) (to facilitate testing).
This commit invents a mechanism to wrap a file object so we
can observe activity on it. We have similar functionality in
badserverext.py. But that's a test-only extension and is pretty
specific to the HTTP server. I would like a mechanism in core
that is sufficiently generic so it can be used by multiple
consumers, including `hg debug*` commands.
The added code consists of a proxy type for file objects.
It is bound to an "observer," which receives callbacks whenever
I/O methods are called.
We also add an implementation of an observer that logs specific
I/O events. This observer will be used in an upcoming commit
to record low-level wire protocol activity.
A helper function to convert a file object into an observed
file object has also been implemented.
I don't anticipate any critical functionality in core using
these types. So I don't think explicit test coverage is
worth implementing.
Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2462
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Sat, 24 Feb 2018 12:07:21 -0800] rev 36523
wireprotoserver: ability to run an SSH server until an event is set
It seems useful to be able to start an SSH protocol server that
won't run forever and won't call sys.exit() when it stops. This
could be used to facilitate intra-process testing of the SSH
protocol, for example.
We teach the server function to loop until a threading.Event is set
and invent a new API to run the server until an event is set. It also
won't sys.exit() afterwards.
There aren't many callers of serve_forever(). So we could refactor
them relatively easily. But I was lazy.
threading.Event might be a bit heavyweight. An alternative would be
a list whose only elements is changed. We can't use a simple scalar
value like a bool or int because those types are immutable. Events
are what you use in systems programming for this use case, so the
use of threading.Event seems justified.
Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2461