There's a rare case which leads to stagnation in the defragger, causing
it to keep scanning the keyspace and do nothing (not moving any
allocation), this happens when all the allocator slabs of a certain bin
have the same % utilization, but the slab from which new allocations are
made have a lower utilization.
this commit fixes it by removing the current slab from the overall
average utilization of the bin, and also eliminate any precision loss in
the utilization calculation and move the decision about the defrag to
reside inside jemalloc.
and also add a test that consistently reproduce this issue.
in ACLSetUserCommandBit, when the command bit overflows, no operation
is performed, so no need clear the USER_FLAG_ALLCOMMANDS flag.
in ACLSetUser, when adding subcommand, we don't need to call
ACLGetCommandID ahead since subcommand may be empty.
with the original version of 6.0.0, this test detects an excessive full
sync.
with the fix in 1a7cd2c0e, this test detects memory corruption,
especially when using libc allocator with or without valgrind.
This was broken in 1a7cd2c: we identified a crash in the CI, what
was happening before the fix should be like that:
1. The client gets in the async free list.
2. However freeClient() gets called again against the same client
which is a master.
3. The client arrived in freeClient() with the CLOSE_ASAP flag set.
4. The master gets cached, but NOT removed from the CLOSE_ASAP linked
list.
5. The master client that was cached was immediately removed since it
was still in the list.
6. Redis accessed a freed cached master.
This is how the crash looked like:
=== REDIS BUG REPORT START: Cut & paste starting from here ===
1092:S 16 May 2020 11:44:09.731 # Redis 999.999.999 crashed by signal: 11
1092:S 16 May 2020 11:44:09.731 # Crashed running the instruction at: 0x447e18
1092:S 16 May 2020 11:44:09.731 # Accessing address: 0xffffffffffffffff
1092:S 16 May 2020 11:44:09.731 # Failed assertion: (:0)
------ STACK TRACE ------
EIP:
src/redis-server 127.0.0.1:21300(readQueryFromClient+0x48)[0x447e18]
And the 0xffff address access likely comes from accessing an SDS that is
set to NULL (we go -1 offset to read the header).
Seems like on some systems choosing specific TLS v1/v1.1 versions no
longer works as expected. Test is reduced for v1.2 now which is still
good enough to test the mechansim, and matters most anyway.
