Login

nak / counter-drift-race.md

Last active 1 week ago

Like 0
Unlisted

gpt-6-astra's assessment on why post counts drifted from reality

counter-drift-race.md Raw

Reproduced cause of possible counter drift

Finding

A deterministic synthetic two-connection test reproduces understated profile post counts using the deployed delete_post SQL sequence under READ COMMITTED, the live database's confirmed default isolation level. Both deletions commit successfully; the second counts a row already removed by the first transaction.

The reproduction uses a separate synthetic schema in the local restored database and removes that schema afterward. It does not operate on public Mitra tables or execute the Rust binary. Script: reproduce-counter-race.py; output: counter-race.log.

Interleaving

Start with actor 1 having three stored posts: a reply and two unrelated posts. Actor 2 has the reply's parent post.

  1. Transaction A selects the reply for deletion and subtracts one from actor 1's counter (3 → 2), retaining the profile row lock.
  2. Transaction B selects the parent and its reply. Its counter UPDATE starts with both posts visible but waits on A's profile row lock.
  3. A deletes the reply, decrements the parent's reply count, and commits.
  4. B resumes. Its UPDATE's earlier statement snapshot counted the reply, so it subtracts one again from actor 1's now-current counter (2 → 1). It also decrements actor 2's counter.
  5. B deletes the parent and commits. The reply is already gone, so it is not deleted twice, but it was counted twice.

Observed final result: actor 1 has stored count 1 and actual post count 2. Both transactions completed without constraint errors. Enough repetitions can later make an unrelated cleanup subtraction violate the nonnegative counter constraint.

Source

  • Deployed Mitra 5.10.0 mitra_models/src/posts/queries.rs:1907: delete_post first enumerates descendants/reposts, then subtracts counts from profiles, then deletes the root. The selected posts are not locked before the accounting operation.
  • mitra_models/src/profiles/queries.rs:550: delete_profile uses the same enumerate/subtract/delete pattern. This is another path to audit; the executable reproduction specifically tests two overlapping post deletions.
  • mitra_activitypub/src/handlers/delete.rs: both federated Delete(Note) and Delete(Person) reach these operations. No surrounding serialization lock was found in that handler. The background retention worker also calls delete_post, providing another possible concurrent deletion source.
  • delete_repost also appears to omit decrementing its author's post counter despite creation incrementing it. That would produce overcounts, not the undercounts repaired here; it is a separate static-review observation, not the demonstrated race.

Limits and next step

This proves a counter-drift mechanism in the deployed SQL, not that particular users' deletion activity caused the seven historical inconsistencies. Busy deletion periods involving overlapping threads are consistent with the mechanism. A patch needs concurrency-safe accounting across deletion paths and a regression test reproducing this interleaving; simply skipping failed cleanup targets would not prevent new drift. No code patch has been applied.