Reconcile: adopt initialization's consolidated HQ as canonical, re-home this session's new work #24
@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
|
|||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
status: open
|
||||||
|
opened: 2026-08-29
|
||||||
|
located-in: [mesh-host, mesh-control]
|
||||||
|
fixed-by:
|
||||||
|
amended-design:
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# 010 — The first declaration a node receives destroys the substrate it raised
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Symptom
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A first node was raised from its carried bundle: container runtime, store, two context databases,
|
||||||
|
their schemas, broker, control plane. Eleven resources, all running. It then enrolled against the
|
||||||
|
control plane on its own machine, held its link open, and was sent a declaration naming two
|
||||||
|
resources — a directory and a file.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Both were applied correctly. And **every container on the machine was removed**: the store, the
|
||||||
|
broker, and the control plane that had sent the declaration. The link died mid-sentence with
|
||||||
|
`the link closed: Exception (501) Reason: "EOF"`, because the broker carrying it had just been
|
||||||
|
torn down by the message it carried.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Afterwards `mesh-host owned` listed two resources. The mesh had deleted itself.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## What is actually wrong
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Nothing in the code is behaving incorrectly. `apply` removes what the store holds and the incoming
|
||||||
|
declaration does not name, which is what reconciliation means — the declaration is the desired
|
||||||
|
state, not a patch, and anything else would make it impossible to remove a resource by omission.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**The fault is that the carried bundle and mesh declarations share one store.** The host cannot
|
||||||
|
tell "this machine raised this for itself before there was a mesh" from "the mesh told this
|
||||||
|
machine to have this", so the second overwrites the first completely.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
That is invisible until the two meet, which happens exactly once per mesh: on the first node,
|
||||||
|
after enrolment, at the moment the control plane first speaks.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Why it matters more than a footgun
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**The first node is the only node where the substrate is not the mesh's doing.** Every other node
|
||||||
|
receives everything it runs from the control plane, so a complete declaration is complete by
|
||||||
|
construction. The first node raised its own substrate from a file it carried, and the control
|
||||||
|
plane has never been told about it — so the control plane cannot include it in a declaration even
|
||||||
|
if it wanted to.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
So the first node is left in a state no other node is in, and the ordinary path destroys it.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## What is not the answer
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Making the control plane send the substrate back.** It does not know what the bundle contained
|
||||||
|
and should not: the bundle exists precisely because there was no control plane yet.
|
||||||
|
- **Making apply stop removing orphans.** Removal by omission is how a declaration says *stop
|
||||||
|
running this*, and losing it costs the property that a node converges on what it was told rather
|
||||||
|
than accumulating.
|
||||||
|
- **Special-casing the first node.** [ADR 0004](../../02-DECISIONS/0004-a-node-and-how-it-joins.md)
|
||||||
|
is explicit that its specialness lasts two commands, and this would extend it for ever.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## The shape of an answer, not yet chosen
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The store needs to record **where a resource came from** — carried, or declared — and reconcile
|
||||||
|
each against its own source. A declaration would then remove only what the mesh previously
|
||||||
|
declared, and the bundle would remain the bundle's business until the mesh is told about it.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
That leaves a real question behind it: **what happens when the mesh eventually does declare the
|
||||||
|
substrate**, which it must, or the substrate can never be upgraded. Two sources claiming the same
|
||||||
|
container is the ambiguity this issue is made of, moved rather than removed.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## How it was found
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
In the lab, on a sealed machine, by doing the ordinary thing: raise a first node, enrol it, and
|
||||||
|
tell it something. It was not a test of this — it was the first end-to-end run of the link, and
|
||||||
|
this fell out of it.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The declaration was two lines and destroyed a working mesh in under a second, which is worth
|
||||||
|
holding on to: this is not an edge case reached by trying, it is the first thing that happens.
|
||||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user