Skip to main content

C++ After a Long Time

We were facing a weird issue on our almost stable dns infrastructure. We use PDNS servers and our custom backend to serve DNS requests. So the PDNS server pipes the request to custom backend, the backend reads from the pipe and puts the result back in the pipe which is served back to the client by the server. This intro is not at all useful to the post. So please ignore it.
The problem started since Monday where randomly our PDNS backend started using 100% CPU and the PDNS server started crashing. The backend was written in C++ and the debugging started. The backend had no debug mode to start with (!). So we attached all backend processes to strace. Strace showed a particularly crafted DNS request put the backend in infinite loop. We couldn't get the whole request in the strace as it was bigger than default 32 bytes. We started strace with -s 5000 to capture 5000 bytes. Now the dns request is found. The domain name is 312 bytes long. A full domain should not exceed 253 characters ideally. Dig wont allow one to use 312 bytes long domain name. So this dns packet could be crafted.
As we got the input, we started debugging the code with gdb. What we found wierd was cin stops reading from pipe suddenly. The line cin was not waiting for input. We can imitate it by writing a code like

int main(){
  int n;
   while(true){
      cin>>n;
      count<<"got input";
   }
}

At any point when cin is waiting for 'n', if we enter a string cin sets an error flag and stops reading from the input buffer. So "got input" will be printed infinitely from the point n got a string instead of integer.
cin.clear() and cin.ignore() will come in rescue during this situation. This stack overflow link should give more details on this behaviour of C++. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How we have systematically improved the roads our packets travel to help data imports and exports flourish

This blog post is an account of how we have toiled over the years to improve the throughput of our interDC tunnels. I joined this company around 2012. We were scaling aggressively then. We quickly expanded to 4 DCs with a mixture of AWS and colocation. Our primary DC is connected to all these new DCs via IPSEC tunnels established from SRX. The SRX model we had, had an IPSEC throughput of 350Mbps. Around December 2015 we saturated the SRX. Buying SRX was an option on the table. Buying one with 2Gbps throughput would have cut the story short. The tech team didn't see it happening. I don't have an answer to the question, "Is it worth spending time in solving a problem if a solution is already available out of box?" This project helped us in improving our critical thinking and in experiencing the theoretical network fundamentals on live traffic, but also caused us quite a bit of fatigue due to management overhead. Cutting short the philosophy, lets jump to the story.

LXC and Host Crashes

 We had set up a bunch of lxc containers on two servers each with 16 core CPUs and 64 GB RAM(for reliability and loadbalancing). Both the servers are on same vlan. The servers need to have atleast one of their network interface in promiscuous mode so that it forwards all packets on vlan to the bridge( http://blogs.eskratch.com/2012/10/create-your-own-vms-i.html ) which takes care of the routing to containers. If the packets are not addressed to the containers, the bridge drops the packet. Having this setup, we moved all our platform maintenance services to these containers. They are fault tolerant as we used two host machines where each host machine has a replica of the containers on the other. The probability to crash for both the servers at the same time due to some hardware/software failure is less. But to my surprise both the servers are crashing exactly the same time with a mean life time 20 days. We had to wake up late nights(early mornings) to fix stuffs that gone down The

The FB outage

 This outage has caused considerable noise everywhere. It was quite discomforting for me because during the whole conversation nobody bothered to understand the gravity of the issue. I don't expect end users to understand the issue. But this is going to be a blogpost for all of those in the tech field, Such an event can happen how much ever chaos engineering, best of the tech jargon we implement in the stack To all my Site Reliability Engineer friends, Site Up is our first priority. I myself said many a times outage is news and SREs should prevent outage. But I'm afraid this is leading to a cult in the industry who despises outages and takes no learnings from it. I don't know what has happened in Facebook. I can explain a scenario which may or may not be right but that can definitely show the gravity of the issue. Let's draw a probable Facebook architecture Disclaimer I don't work at Facebook. So this might not be how facebook routes traffic. This is based on my exp