Re: [gentoo-alt] tree verification in prefix

[Fabian Groffen]

Ok, I've got my verification tool up and running on the main gx86 rsync
tree now (5s on hot filesystem) now I'm seeing a lot of hash mismatches
for the prefix tree.  One step further I think.

Fabian


On 22-02-2018 20:52:33 +0100, Michael Weiser wrote:
> Hi Fabian,
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 08:24:25AM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>
> > Please excuse my snipping.
>
> I was rambling, wasn't I. :) I'll snip some more for now.
>
> > > > hashgen currently runs in 30s or so on the tree to generate
> > > > manifests.
> I recompiled gcc overnight and got the following numbers today on one
> of the ARM SBCs:
>
> [root@linux:~] time ./hashgen /usr/portage/
> real    7m28.071s
> user    10m8.355s
> sys     0m57.435s
> [root@linux:~] time ./hashgen /usr/portage/
> real    7m6.195s
> user    9m54.715s
> sys     0m54.123s
>
> [root@linux:~] time gemato create -K /var/lib/gentoo/gkeys/keyrings/gentoo/release/pubring.gpg -f -S -t -H SHA512\ BLAKE2B  /usr/portage
> INFO:root:Creating Manifests in /usr/portage...
> INFO:root:/usr/portage updated in 599.46 seconds
>
> real    10m5.431s
> user    8m54.606s
> sys     0m59.072s
>
> So there is a 30% speedup at least.
>
> > Odd, was this rsync1 or rsync2?
> [...]
> > path.  Instead rsync1 and rsync2 are doing full generation both of them.
> > To make this be equal, I had to play a trick with timestamps, I
> > basically set the timestamp to the git commit time.  Maybe this plays a
> > role too?
>
> I just retried: timestamp.chk seemed to be in sync between rsync1 and
> rsync2 at first: A sync from rsync1 syncs some files and later syncs
> even against rsync2 find timestamp.chk matching.
>
> When I delete timestamp.chk and retry several times until the other
> server round-robins in, emaint sync rsyncs what seems like all
> second-level Manifest.gzs (net-fs, dev-libs, etc.) and what seems like
> the whole metadata/md5-cache directory.
>
> When having synced from rsync2, gemato verify failed on
> dev-cpp/Manifest.gz. When having synced from rsync1, it failed on
> net-fs/Manifest.gz.
>
> After waiting for the next refresh, emaint synced selective 2nd level
> manifests and md5-cache from rsync2 again. It still failed verification
> on dev-cpp/Manifest.gz.
>
> On rsync1, timestamp.chk still differed after that first sync and emaint
> sync again synced selective 2nd and 3rd level manifests and again what
> seemed like the whole md5-cache. Verification with gemato still failed
> on net-fs/Manifest.gz.
>
> So the hash discrepancies seem to survive regeneration.
>
> Then I deleted the whole $PORTDIR and sync from scratch. This was
> against rsync1. Verification still fails on net-fs/Manifest.gz.
>
> Deleting timestamp.chk again and running against rsync2, it behaved as
> before and again failed at dev-cpp/Manifest.gz.
>
> $ gemato  verify -K /Users/michael/b/pubring.gpg -R -j1
> /usr/local/gentoo/usr/portage/
> INFO:root:Manifest timestamp: 2018-02-22 19:26:44 UTC
> INFO:root:Valid OpenPGP signature found:
> INFO:root:- primary key: 0204A8ABD003E57A9558850DBA08091EC6317B3C
> INFO:root:- subkey: 0204A8ABD003E57A9558850DBA08091EC6317B3C
> INFO:root:- timestamp: 2018-02-22 19:26:44 UTC
> INFO:root:Verifying /usr/local/gentoo/usr/portage/...
> ERROR:root:Manifest mismatch for dev-cpp/Manifest.gz
>   BLAKE2B: expected:
> 64d7c4bd55a14e8c7296e8185ad9654db39cfc095107411c97b5f425856f780c0b2dffcef436c07bc07c8832506943e7d80ab5eaf2923eb4bc419dea3a8d071a,
> have:
> 6b698c9af8c1bf5012ee01ea308718b2f09330a181b48e663a27977885b75bd439a64d568d59de6a2a17bcad86cedf0cd8cda28361155c382badadc0d369843d
>   SHA512: expected:
> a7d12f2653817a47cc76de6850f8a9ab22bb952f2df1d1029cb23805f868b1d6610a2bc35d1f13666890ed1c9648907e25e949c78f75e2318065b400872e719f,
> have:
> 070bb46740c8ecc565d23dcc35cedc3bb96d6014b083da8428be00e4008ef2e2d882d3b8e8047fe84e16542b090d02c881c08ce60b052de76406f65caf6dd893
>
> Can you perhaps confirm these hash discrepancies on the servers?
>
> > I only checked rsync1 last time, maybe rsync2 isn't as equal as I
> > thought.
>
> They both individually seem to produce hash discrepancies on different
> files.
> --
> Thanks,
> Michael
>

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level