Repository navigation
oci: casext: walk: do not attempt to recurse into un-parseable blobs - #375
Merged
tych0 merged 2 commits intoSep 1, 2021
Merged
Conversation
Member
Author
Member
|
[sorry for the delay, was in the woods for part of last week] Yep, I just tested this and it fixes things for me, thanks. Not sure what you want to do about CI, though. Should I just force-merge? |
Member
Author
|
I'll forcefully fix up the CI this week and we can properly review things afterwards. |
Member
|
ping :) |
Member
Author
|
Thanks for the ping, I just managed to wrangle the CI into working under Github Actions -- I will need to push the fix directly to master though because you can't really PR-based-review a CI change like this one (it won't work until the CI config is on master). |
cyphar
force-pushed
the
cas-workaround-expensive-close
branch
from
September 1, 2021 08:31
2ab44a8 to
16a7a8d
Compare
With VerifiedReadCloser, users are in a situation where using GetBlob for pure existence checks results in the entire blob being read from disk on Close() even though they didn't read any bytes (meaning the verification check isn't protecting against anything). We can't make VerifiedReadCloser a no-op in the read-nothing case, but it also seems that we should have a separate API for this anyway -- hence a stat-ish API that just does a "does this exist" check. Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>
Since all of these blobs are not parseable, we won't be able to fetch sub-descriptors from them, and thus there's no real point trying to recurse into them. Before commit 4faf753 ("pkg: hardening: slurp trailing bytes in VerifiedReadCloser.Close()") this wasn't too big of a deal, but after that commit Close() is quite expensive for blobs you don't use. Reported-by: Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza> Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>
cyphar
force-pushed
the
cas-workaround-expensive-close
branch
from
September 1, 2021 09:28
16a7a8d to
5adbd99
Compare
tych0
approved these changes
Sep 1, 2021
rchincha
pushed a commit
to rchincha/zot
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2021
There is a performance regression in umoci [1] which is fixed in [2]. References: [1] opencontainers/umoci#373 [2] opencontainers/umoci#375 Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Chinchani <rchincha@cisco.com>
rchincha
pushed a commit
to project-zot/zot
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2021
There is a performance regression in umoci [1] which is fixed in [2]. References: [1] opencontainers/umoci#373 [2] opencontainers/umoci#375 Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Chinchani <rchincha@cisco.com>
adodon2go
added a commit
to adodon2go/zot
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 12, 2021
* go.mod: update umoci dep There is a performance regression in umoci [1] which is fixed in [2]. References: [1] opencontainers/umoci#373 [2] opencontainers/umoci#375 Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Chinchani <rchincha@cisco.com> * doc: add documentation for comparison with well-known registries Add COMPARISON.md Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Chinchani <rchincha@cisco.com> * Update README.md * Update README.md * go.mod: update deps to address dependabot alerts Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Chinchani <rchincha@cisco.com> * search: added graphql api to return repository list with latest tag * Update COMPARISON.md * Added first tests on node exporter * Added more tests on node exporter; refactored MetricsServer * Fixed linter issues * Added more tests for better code coverage * Enable GH Actions on this branch * Updated go.mod * Fix sanity * Prepare the fix before merging Co-authored-by: Ramkumar Chinchani <rchincha@cisco.com> Co-authored-by: Ramkumar Chinchani <45800463+rchincha@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Shivam Mishra <shimish2@cisco.com>
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
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.
Since all of these blobs are not parseable, we won't be able to fetch
sub-descriptors from them, and thus there's no real point trying to
recurse into them. Before commit 4faf753 ("pkg: hardening: slurp
trailing bytes in VerifiedReadCloser.Close()") this wasn't too big of a
deal, but after that commit Close() is quite expensive for blobs you
don't use.
Reported-by: Tycho Andersen tycho@tycho.pizza
Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai cyphar@cyphar.com