Re: Protocol de-synchronisation bug, bogus query sent

From: "Inoue, Hiroshi" <inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Protocol de-synchronisation bug, bogus query sent
Date: 2014-06-19 04:25:25
Message-ID: 53A26635.4030200@tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-odbc

Hi Craig,

The code seems for v0/v1 protocol. Though I don't remember well, the
dance was probably because v0/v1 didn't have clear sync mechanism.
I wonder why the code reached there. The flag beforeV2 is broken?

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

(2014/06/19 12:44), Craig Ringer wrote:
> Hi folks
>
> I've found a bug in psqlODBC, in CC_send_query_append, where psqlODBC
> gets out of sync with the server's idea of the connection state and both
> wait for each other indefinitely.
>
> So far I've only reproduced it as part of debugging a larger issue. I've
> only actually seen it when psqlODBC establishes an "isolated" XA
> connection after failing to acquire a lock on the DTC connection in
> IAsyncPG::getLockedXAConn(). If the client has specified a connect-time
> query string with a DSN like:
>
> DRIVER={PostgreSQL ANSI};SERVER=LOCALHOST;DATABASE=postgres;A6=set
> search_path to someschema;UID=;PWD=;BI=-5;debug=1;commlog=1;
>
> ... but it's clearly a bug in its own right, so I'll write it up here
> and propose a fix.
>
>
> Patch attached, or you can pull the branch:
>
> fix-febe-protocol-desync-emptyquery
>
> from https://github.com/ringerc/psqlODBC.git
>
>
>
> The whole code block around connection.c:3082 appears to be attempting
> to send an empty query in order to elicit an 'I' (EmptyQueryResponse)
> message. It sends a malformed protocol message:
>
> SOCK_put_string(self->sock, "Q ");
> SOCK_flush_output(self->sock);
>
> so the server just waits for the rest of the message, never responding.
>
> When the connection is killed by program exit later, the server will log:
>
> LOG: unexpected EOF within message length word
> LOG: disconnection: session time: 0:00:08.910 user=Administrator
> database=XXXX host=127.0.0.1 port=53705
> LOG: could not receive data from client: No connection could be made
> because the target machine actively refused it.
>
>
> That's because the V3 protocol specifies that the message format for
> Query is:
>
> 'Q'
> [32 bit integer]
> [query string]
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/protocol-message-formats.html
>
> ... but psqlODBC just sends:
>
> 'Q'
> '\x20'
> '\x00'
>
> If it is really necessary to go through this empty-query dance, then for
> the V3 protocol the correct message would be:
>
> /* Send an empty query to elicit an 'I' (EmptyQueryResponse)
> * from the server */
> SOCK_put_char(self->sock, 'Q');
> SOCK_put_int(self->sock, 5, 4);
> SOCK_put_char(self->sock, '\0');
>
>
>
> Since no 'I' message is ever received the next message is 'Z'
> (ReadyForQuery). psqlODBC consumes this and carries on waiting for the
> next message, as it has set emptyreqs=1 to expect 'I' messages. So it
> waits forever, since the server thinks it's waiting for psqlODBC to
> finish sending the prior protocol message.
>
> It isn't clear to me why psqlODBC does this weird dance with empty
> queries at all, but it's certainly doing it wrong.
>
> The attached patch fixes the immediate problem, but I'd like to see if
> this can be simplified out entirely in favour of, in ascending
> size-of-work order, (a) using a protocol sync message, then (b) deleting
> as much as possible of this custom protocol handling code entirely and
> using libpq.

--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
SPAMfighter has removed 10973 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

Do you have a slow PC? Try a Free scan
http://www.spamfighter.com/SLOW-PCfighter?cid=sigen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-odbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2014-06-19 04:56:25 Re: Protocol de-synchronisation bug, bogus query sent
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2014-06-19 04:06:30 Re: Removing support for v1 and v2 protocols?