Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Combine SSHConnection._init_connection and Microvm.wait_for_ssh_up #4850

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 15, 2024

Conversation

roypat
Copy link
Contributor

@roypat roypat commented Oct 14, 2024

We use Microvm.wait_for_ssh_up to wait for a booted guest's userland to be initialized enough that it can process incoming SSH connections. However, it turns out that we werent waiting the intended 10s, we were waiting 3s. The reason for this is that before the true command in wait_for_ssh_up is even sent to the guest, we go through the Microvm.ssh property, which calls the Microvm.ssh_face function, which constructs an SSHConnection object, whose construtor calls SSHConnection._init_connection. And inside _init_connection, we already try to send a true command to the guest, to ascertain it is up and running. However, here we do it in a retry loop (needed because if port 22 is still closed, ssh exits with non-zero code and "connection refuses") that does 20 retries at 0.15s intervals. Or tries to 3 seconds. Most importantly, the retries in _init_connection are done without timeouts, so even if we actually hung during connection establishment, wait_for_ssh_up wouldn't abort after 10 seconds, because it would get stuck inside of _init_connection, which doesn't know anything about a 10s timeout.

Fix all this up by merging _init_connection and wait_for_ssh_up. Skip sending the true command in wait_for_ssh_up, and just call ssh_iface(0) directly. Increment the retry time in _init_connection to actually be 10s. And add a 10s timeout to the commands in _init_connection.

License Acceptance

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under
the terms of the Apache 2.0 license. For more information on following Developer
Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check
CONTRIBUTING.md.

PR Checklist

  • If a specific issue led to this PR, this PR closes the issue.
  • The description of changes is clear and encompassing.
  • Any required documentation changes (code and docs) are included in this
    PR.
  • API changes follow the Runbook for Firecracker API changes.
  • User-facing changes are mentioned in CHANGELOG.md.
  • All added/changed functionality is tested.
  • New TODOs link to an issue.
  • Commits meet
    contribution quality standards.

  • This functionality cannot be added in rust-vmm.

@roypat roypat changed the title Combine SSHConnection._init_connection and Microvm.wait_for_ssh_up Combine SSHConnection._init_connection and Microvm.wait_for_ssh_up Oct 14, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 14, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 84.01%. Comparing base (82eec3e) to head (14f6c3c).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #4850   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   84.01%   84.01%           
=======================================
  Files         251      251           
  Lines       28019    28019           
=======================================
  Hits        23541    23541           
  Misses       4478     4478           
Flag Coverage Δ
5.10-c5n.metal 84.64% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m5n.metal 84.62% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6a.metal 83.92% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
5.10-m6g.metal 80.62% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6i.metal 84.61% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
5.10-m7g.metal 80.62% <ø> (ø)
6.1-c5n.metal 84.64% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m5n.metal 84.62% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6a.metal 83.92% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6g.metal 80.62% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6i.metal 84.61% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m7g.metal 80.62% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@roypat roypat marked this pull request as ready for review October 14, 2024 16:32
bchalios
bchalios previously approved these changes Oct 15, 2024
We use `Microvm.wait_for_ssh_up` to wait for a booted guest's userland
to be initialized enough that it can process incoming SSH connections.
However, it turns out that we werent waiting the intended 10s, we were
waiting 3s. The reason for this is that before the `true` command in
`wait_for_ssh_up` is even sent to the guest, we go through the
`Microvm.ssh` property, which calls the `Microvm.ssh_face` function,
which constructs an `SSHConnection` object, whose construtor calls
`SSHConnection._init_connection`. And inside `_init_connection`, we
_already_ try to send a `true` command to the guest, to ascertain it is
up and running. However, here we do it in a retry loop (needed because
if port 22 is still closed, `ssh` exits with non-zero code and
"connection refuses") that does 20 retries at 0.15s intervals. Or tries
to 3 seconds. Most importantly, the retries in `_init_connection` are
done without timeouts, so even _if_ we actually hung during connection
establishment, `wait_for_ssh_up` wouldn't abort after 10 seconds,
because it would get stuck inside of `_init_connection`, which doesn't
know anything about a 10s timeout.

Fix all this up by merging `_init_connection` and `wait_for_ssh_up`.
Skip sending the `true` command in `wait_for_ssh_up`, and just call
`ssh_iface(0)` directly. Increment the retry time in `_init_connection`
to actually be 10s. And add a 10s timeout to the commands in
`_init_connection`.

Signed-off-by: Patrick Roy <roypat@amazon.co.uk>
@roypat roypat requested review from zulinx86 and pb8o October 15, 2024 10:27
@roypat roypat added the Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed label Oct 15, 2024
@pb8o pb8o merged commit df82a41 into firecracker-microvm:main Oct 15, 2024
7 of 8 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants