Files in directory /walbanger from the latest check-in of branch trunk
About Harvey the WAL-Banger
What It Is
This tool attempts to disprove the proposition that SQLite’s WAL mode is safe across some given boundary. It was originally written to test the OCI container boundary, since it is not immediately clear that sharing a Linux kernel allows WAL’s shared memory and locking calls to cooperate across that boundary.
If the program produces no errors, it doesn't prove the test condition safe; it merely proves that you have failed to fail so far. The only thing you can do from the state of lack-of-failure is to keep trying until you decide that nothing you can do will break it. Only then can you call the test condition provisionally safe, pending later proof that it isn't. Such is the nature of epistemology, alas.
You might hope for it to not give an error, but realize that this is the
more interesting condition, since that is a definitive result. If you can
walbanger fail in an interesting way, you will have
learned something definite about how SQLite works under that condition.
This is valuable knowledge.
We can never say “SQLite’s WAL mode will never corrupt your database when used in condition X.” The best we can say is that we failed to make it corrupt the database in that test scenario. If the test doesn't match reality, or if the test is incomplete, it will fail to find the corner case that breaks things.
I've made a detailed demonstration video which shows the program in action, including instructions on how to configure it, run it, and interpret its output.
The simplest way to get useful results from this program is to open two terminal windows in this source directory, then say this in the first:
$ make run
…and from the second:
$ ./walbanger -p ~/tmp/walbanger.db
This runs the same program twice, but the first one is done by a
one-line script that includes the “
-r” flag to make it reset the DB
before beginning work, while the second one leaves it off so it will
skip that step and go straight to updating the DB as it found it. If
you say “
make run” twice instead, the second instance will reset the
first instance’s DB out from under it, which will make it a sad
program. 😪 Don’t do that.
The full-strength version of this test builds a Docker container image and then instantiates three containers from it, all running simultaneously on the same machine, with the same mapped-in volume, thus causing all three instances to be manipulating the same database file. We use Docker’s swarm mode for this, the simplest way to orchestrate several containers on a single computer. The short-and-sweet is:
$ docker swarm init # needed once only $ make swarm $ docker service logs -f walbanger
That’s it. It should build the container image and then deploy 3
replicas of it as a service called “
walbanger” on your swarm manager,
which will be the same as the computer you ran the second command on
unless you already have a swarm set up, and its manager is elsewhere.
(If you have multiple manager nodes in your swarm, Docker will try to
spread the service replicas out round-robin, which isn’t a helpful test:
each node will end up with its own
/db volume, so you don’t test
whether database sharing works across the container boundary at all.)
The final command tails the logs of all the containers in the swarm. The idea is, if any of them says anything other than the “Opening” message, it’s complaining of a problem, likely showing that you’ve got a problem.
Another way you can use this testing tool is in single-container mode against another copy running out on the host. In one terminal window, say:
$ make single
…and then in another terminal say:
$ make run
The first will run a single container instance with your user’s
directory mapped into it as
/db, and the second will run a copy of the
program outside the container against the same directory.
(See the "split kernels" failure mode below, however.)
The program is written in the C++11 dialect of C++.
Since the current focus of the tool is on testing inter-container database access, it was written for and tested on POSIX type platforms.
Lack of Windows support is not considered a serious problem. The Alpine
Linux based container built by the included
will run on the Windows version of Docker, and it will of course build and
run under WSL2.
The most stringent test we've put
walbanger to so far is running 100 instances
under Docker Swarm on a ten-core macOS 12 (Monterey) box overnight — roughly
12 to 14 hours — during which a background script ran which killed instances off
at random, one per minute. The database survived to the end of the test without
All of SQLite's "How To Corrupt An SQLite Database File" warnings apply, so one of the less valuable things this program offers is a quick and easy way to trigger these documented failure modes. For instance, running this program across a network file sharing protocol is expected to fail. If you've read about that but never saw it happen yourself because you heeded the warnings, this program provides a quick way to demonstrate the failure without putting valuable data at risk.
One of the less obvious ways we've seen this program fail is to run the program as a container on the Windows or macOS version of Docker or Podman, then run a separate copy of the program against the same test database. It'll fail because you've broken the shared-kernel link that allows the instances to cooperate in the primary test cases listed above. Container runtimes on non-Linux OSes must create a hidden background Linux VM to run the containers under since the host OSes don't have the kernel primitives needed to run containers themselves.
Contrariwise, it might not fail if you put the database into DELETE mode before running this test, because that simpler locking model can cooperate across this boundary, under the right conditions. I've seen it succeed on macOS, for one. I haven't tested it on Windows, but I know enough about the matter from a past life to expect it to fail if the host-side binary is built under Cygwin or you port it to native Windows via MinGW or Visual C++.
An interesting experiment would be to find out whether it fails when run as a container under Docker Desktop for Windows while another copy is running out in WSL2. They should share a kernel in this instance, so I would expect it to succeed. If anyone tries this, I'd be willing to publish your results.
If you can find other ways to make this program fail, reliably, I’d like to hear about it, particularly if you think it's not expected to fail.