Repository navigation
Conversation
b7r6
force-pushed
the
b7r6/grpc-read-limit-resume
branch
4 times, most recently
from
October 8, 2026 15:12
636aa0f to
9727f86
Compare
b7r6
force-pushed
the
b7r6/grpc-read-limit-resume
branch
from
October 14, 2026 17:40
9727f86 to
0795b1f
Compare
b7r6
force-pushed
the
b7r6/grpc-read-limit-resume
branch
from
October 15, 2026 11:19
0795b1f to
41470c8
Compare
…ried blob (TraceMachina#2840) `sizes_for_keys` snapshotted `lru.len()` once for the whole batch and reused that stale length in `should_evict` for every key in the loop. When the map sits one entry over `max_count` — e.g. an action-input lease (or a TTL-pending entry) pins it at `max_count + 1` — the first unleased queried key is popped, bringing the real length back to `max_count`. But iterations 2..N still saw the stale `lru_len == max_count + 1`, so `is_over_count` stayed true and every remaining queried, unleased entry was popped too: remove-callbacks queued, `FileEntryImpl` unref deleting the backing files. The batch then reports `None` for all N digests, the client treats them as absent and re-uploads, and a plain existence check (`has()` → FilesystemStore → `sizes_for_keys`) has destroyed every resident blob it was only asked about. Fix: keep a mutable working count and decrement it as entries are reaped, so the over-count predicate is re-evaluated against the current length each iteration. Eviction now stops the moment the map is back at/under the limit — a size/existence query evicts at most the genuine overage and never cascades. Adds a white-box regression test that pins the map one over `max_count` with a leased entry (bypassing the insert-time eviction pass the way a held lease does) and asserts a batch `sizes_for_keys` over the resident keys leaves all but the single-entry overage present. It fails on the stale-len code (all N reported missing) and passes with the fix. Provenance: adversarial review fleet, highest-severity finding.
* Update Rust crate rustls to v0.23.46 [SECURITY] * Fix MODULE.bazel.lock
A mid-stream retry in `GrpcStore::get_part` advanced `read_offset` by the forwarded byte count but left `read_limit` unchanged. `read_limit` is a REAPI ByteStream count measured from `read_offset`, so the resume re-requested the original window from the advanced offset and over-read by exactly the bytes already delivered (an L-byte bounded read could yield up to L+f bytes). Unbounded reads (`read_limit == 0`) were unaffected and must stay so. Decrement `read_limit` by the forwarded length on resume, guarded so unbounded stays unbounded. Regression asserts the resume ReadRequest's read_limit shrinks by the forwarded count (fails without the fix: 10 vs 7). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <[email protected]>
b7r6
force-pushed
the
b7r6/grpc-read-limit-resume
branch
from
October 15, 2026 13:51
41470c8 to
c6bda46
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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 and why
Lane A stability fix from the findings catalog (see
nativelink-findings-2026-10-05.csvon the
meta/findings-catalog-2026-10-05branch), rebased onto OSS main@bf4b3aa855. This fork PR exists to validate the change on CI that is
representative of upstream PR lanes (public read-only cache, same endpoints)
before any upstream submission.
How was this verified?
The branch carries its own regression tests (fails-without where the fix
class allows it — see the branch's test commits). This PR's purpose is the
full representative CI run; green here rehearses the exact checks an
upstream PR would face.
Risk
Fork-internal validation PR; nothing lands anywhere by merging this. The
underlying fix's risk assessment happens at upstream-submission time.
AI assistance
Agent-assisted pipeline (Claude) for rebase and PR mechanics under my
direction; the fix itself carries verification in its tests.