November 22, 2019 by Drew DeVault

What happens when you push to git.sr.ht, and why was it so slow?

One of the most persistent, frustrating, and entirely valid, criticisms of Sourcehut that I’ve heard has been that git operations over SSH are too slow. The reason this is a frustrating complaint to hear is that the git.sr.ht SSH pipeline is a complicated set of many moving parts, and fixing the problem involved changes at every level. However, as many of you will (hopefully) have noticed by now, pushing to and pulling from git.sr.ht is quite snappy now! So after a huge amount of work overhauling everything to get us here, I thought it would be nice to reflect on what caused these issues, how this system is structured, and how the problem was eventually solved.

There are several major tasks that need to happen when you push or pull to git.sr.ht. In order, they are:

  1. Dispatch Which system are you SSHing into? git.sr.ht? builds.sr.ht?
  2. Identification Who are you?
  3. Authorization Are you allowed to do what you’re trying to do?
  4. Execution Hand things off to git to complete your operation.
  5. Follow-up Do we need to submit any CI jobs? Webhooks?

During each of these steps, your terminal is blocked. You have to wait for all of them to complete. Well, most of them, at least. Let’s discuss each step in detail.

Dispatching

There are several Sourcehut services which you can log onto using SSH: git.sr.ht, hg.sr.ht, and builds.sr.ht, and perhaps more in the future. Before we overhauled it, man.sr.ht used to have a dedicated SSH service as well. In our case, we run each of these services on their own servers at their own IP addresses. However, this was not always the case, and we still support third-party installations of Sourcehut services which are all sharing a single server. Therefore, we have to have a way of identifying which service you’re trying to SSH into, and for this purpose we use the user. You use git@git.sr.ht, hg@hg.sr.ht, and builds@builds.sr.ht, to log onto each respective service.

This phase is handled by our gitsrht-dispatch binary, whose source code you can view here. This is run by OpenSSH in order to generate an authorized_keys file, with a list of SSH keys which are allowed to log into Sourcehut. That’s beyond the scope of dispatch, however, which delegates it to the next step. Instead, it just figures out which service it needs to hand you off to for authentication.

[git.sr.ht::dispatch]
#
# The authorized keys hook uses this to dispatch to various handlers
# The format is a program to exec into as the key, and the user to match as the
# value. When someone tries to log in as this user, this program is executed
# and is expected to emit an AuthorizedKeys file.
/usr/bin/gitsrht-keys=git:git
/usr/bin/hgsrht-keys=hg:hg

When you SSH into the service as git@..., the dispatcher looks up the entry corresponding to the git user. In this case, it’s gitsrht-keys. Then, it finds the uid and gid for this account, setuid1’s itself to that user, and exec’s2 into the next step.

Identification

Each discrete service is separately responsible for its own approach to identifying and authorizing users. OpenSSH executed our dispatcher hoping to get an authorized keys file, and the next step is to prepare one for it. For git.sr.ht, this responsibility falls onto gitsrht-keys.

This is where things start to get interesting in terms of performance. Ideally, we want to get out of here with zero round-trips to remote services like SQL. For this reason, we cache your SSH keys on a Redis instance at localhost. OpenSSH handed us your base64’d SSH key and dispatch forwarded it to us, and we use this to look up your key from the cache. If we find it, we can skip directly to the final step. But, if we miss the cache, we ask meta.sr.ht if it’s seen your key before. We then cache it in Redis and make sure we have a copy in our database as well, to save you time for the next push. But even in this worst case, we’re already starting to see hand-optimized SQL queries:

-- Getting the user ID is really a separate concern, but this saves us a
-- SQL roundtrip and this is a performance-critical section
WITH key_owner AS (
  SELECT id user_id
  FROM "user"
  WHERE "user".username = $1
)
INSERT INTO sshkey (
  user_id,
  meta_id,
  key,
  fingerprint
)
SELECT user_id, $2, $3, $4
FROM key_owner
-- This no-ops on conflict, but we still need this query to complete so
-- that we can extract the user ID. DO NOTHING returns zero rows.
ON CONFLICT (meta_id) DO UPDATE SET meta_id = $2
RETURNING id, user_id;

We need to get your git.sr.ht user ID while we’re here, and normally we’d look it up in Redis. With this SQL query, we fetch the user ID at the same time as we store your key. This kind of hacky SQL packing is a common tactic we’ll see employed throughout for improved performance.

At the end of this process, we print out a generated authorized keys file and exit, then OpenSSH does the rest of the work to verify that the user actually possesses the private key they claim to and so on. Then, when they’re allowed in, we move on to the shell.

restrict,command=gitsrht-shell,environment="SRHT_PUSH=<uuid>",your ssh key here

This keys file turns off almost all SSH features (restrict), overrides the command you will run to use our shell, and adds an assigned UUID for this push to the environment.

Authorization

At this point, we’ve found your account and verified that you’re an authorized agent of the user, using your SSH key. Now we need to know if you’re allowed to do what you’re trying to do, which is where gitsrht-shell comes in. Its job is to look up the repository you’re trying to do and compare the operation you want to perform (read or write) against the access control lists. Even in the best case, we’re required to do a SQL round-trip here. This is what it looks like:

-- Fetch the necessary info from SQL. This first query fetches:
--
-- 1. Repository information, such as visibility (public|unlisted|private)
-- 2. Information about the repository owner's account
-- 3. Information about the pusher's account
-- 4. Any access control policies for that repo that apply to the pusher
SELECT
  repo.id,
  repo.name,
  repo.owner_id,
  owner.username,
  repo.visibility,
  pusher.user_type,
  pusher.suspension_notice,
  access.mode
FROM repository repo
JOIN "user" owner  ON owner.id  = repo.owner_id
JOIN "user" pusher ON pusher.id = $1
LEFT JOIN access
  ON (access.repo_id = repo.id AND access.user_id = $1)
WHERE
  repo.path = $2;

Again, we’ve jammed a lot of somewhat disjoint information into a single SQL query for efficiency’s sake. We fetch everything we’ll need to know later on: what’s this repo’s ID and name, who’s the owner, what’s the repo visibility, who’s the pusher and what kind of user are they, is their account suspended and how do we break it to them if so, and are there any access list entries for them on this repository?

There are two reasons that this could fail: the repository has been renamed, or it never existed. If this query returns no results, then we try to look for a redirect — round-trip #2. The query is as follows:

SELECT
  repo.id,
  repo.name,
  repo.owner_id,
  owner.username,
  repo.visibility,
  pusher.user_type,
  pusher.suspension_notice,
  access.mode
FROM repository repo
JOIN "user" owner  ON owner.id  = repo.owner_id
JOIN "user" pusher ON pusher.id = $1
JOIN redirect      ON redirect.new_repo_id = repo.id
LEFT JOIN access
  ON (access.repo_id = repo.id AND access.user_id = $1)
WHERE
  redirect.path = $2;

You’ll notice that we’re also fetching a whole lot of information at once here. In case we do find a redirect, we don’t want to do a third round-trip to fetch all the information we’ll need for that repo, either.

Say this fails, too. Now we definitely know that your repository doesn’t exist. This is the point at which git.sr.ht’s autocreate-repos-on-push feature kicks in, if the repo you’re pushing to is under your user namespace. That code is fairly simple and involves an additional round-trip, you may study it in your own time.

But, if we get this far, then we have everything we need to finish authorizing you. If you do have permission to complete the operation you’ve requested, we exec into the appropriate git binary.

Execution

At this point, you’re in git’s hands. We’ve handed you off to one of their binaries to complete the push or pull operation. The tools that can be run at this point are git-receive-pack, git-upload-pack, or git-upload-archive — follow the links if you want to learn more about them.

Following up: hooks

There’s one last task for us to do before we can send you on your way, and it’s split into three parts. These are our git hooks. These are only run on git pushes, not for fetching. We use these hooks to complete some housekeeping after your pushes complete, and to implement a few features. The remaining tasks for us to do at this point are:

  1. Update the mtime of your repository
  2. Submit any necessary builds.sr.ht jobs
  3. Deliver webhooks

This doesn’t seem like much, but it’s in fact the most complicated part of the process so far. It’s handled by gitsrht-update-hook. These tasks correspond, though not 1:1, to three steps, each mapping to a different git hook:

  1. hooks/update
  2. hooks/post-update
  3. hooks/stage-3 (this is a pseudo-hook that we made up)

The entry point is pretty simple. It just figures out what stage we’re on and changes its behavior accordingly. The first step, the update hook, is really simple; we just use it to collect data from git for use in later stages. In theory we could reject your push here, but in practice we don’t have anything set up to do so right now. git executes us once for every updated ref, with the old and new sha’s for that ref, and we just shove them into a local Redis instance for later use.

“Later use” comes with stage 2, the post-update hook. This is where the majority of the work for this stage starts to get done. We first pull the “push context” out of the environment, which is some data that gitsrht-shell prepared for us earlier, to avoid fetching the same data in two different stages. We don’t get off completely scot-free, though, and we hit the next required SQL round-trip:

-- With this query, we:
-- 1. Fetch the owner's username and OAuth token
-- 2. Fetch the repository's name and visibility
-- 3. Update the repository's mtime
-- 4. Determine how many webhooks this repo has: if there are zero sync
--    webhooks then we can defer looking them up until after we've sent the
--    user on their way.
UPDATE repository repo
SET updated = NOW() AT TIME ZONE 'UTC'
FROM (
  SELECT "user".username, "user".oauth_token
  FROM "user"
  JOIN repository r ON r.owner_id = "user".id
  WHERE r.id = $1
) AS owner, (
  SELECT
    COUNT(*) FILTER(WHERE rws.sync = true) sync_count,
    COUNT(*) FILTER(WHERE rws.sync = false) async_count
  FROM repo_webhook_subscription rws
  WHERE rws.repo_id = $1 AND rws.events LIKE '%repo:post-update%'
) AS webhooks
WHERE repo.id = $1
RETURNING
  repo.name,
  repo.visibility,
  owner.username,
  owner.oauth_token,
  webhooks.sync_count,
  webhooks.async_count;

This query helps us determine what work we’ll need to do in the rest of the process, and gets us some of the information we need to complete that work. We update the mtime of your repo, but we also do some hacky joins and subqueries to sneak more information out of SQL in one round-trip. We grab the OAuth key we’ll need to submit builds on your behalf to builds.sr.ht, and the number of synchronous and asynchronous webhooks registered for your repository. If there are any synchronous webhooks, that means (by definition) that we need to complete those in this stage, and a second query is performed:

SELECT id, url, events
FROM repo_webhook_subscription rws
WHERE rws.repo_id = $1
  AND rws.events LIKE '%repo:post-update%'
  AND rws.sync = true;

Next, we open up your git repository to have a peek inside. We iterate over each ref which you updated during your push, and pull the old and new references out of Redis from stage 1. We pull some info out of git and turn it into a webhook payload to be delivered later, and we look for builds.sr.ht manifests. If we find one, we set up a build submitter for it, and it kicks off any necessary CI jobs.

That webhook payload we’ve prepared now needs to be submitted to any synchronous webhooks before we let go of your terminal - after all, it’s a feature that these webhooks can return some text to show to the pusher before they’re off. The webhook code is pretty straightforward, with one minor exception: webhook payloads are signed.

Once that’s done, we can finally release your terminal and send you on your way. However, we’re not done: we still have to run stage 3. Actually, we only have to run stage 3 if there were any synchronous or asynchronous webhooks on your repository. In the interests of speed, we don’t record your synchronous webhook deliveries into SQL right away, and by definition we do your asynchronous deliveries asynchronously. So, we execute stage 3 as a detached child before we leave, and we send it any information we’ve already collected for it to complete these tasks.

Stage 3’s job can be undertaken at a much more leisurely pace. First, it looks up any asynchronous webhooks, then delivers the same payload to them, graciously forwarded by stage 2. It collects all of their deliveries, combines them with a list of deliveries forwarded from stage 2, and records them in SQL. Now, at long last, this lengthy process is complete.

So why was everything slow?

Well, for a few reasons. First, each step of this pipeline used to be written in Python, not Go, which matched the rest of Sourcehut’s implementation. Spinning up the Python VM and pulling in all of our imports - including, for example, all of our SQLAlchemy riggings - is not cheap. Each of these steps would separately incur a startup cost on the order of up to a second each.

Another reason is that the SQL riggings were not especially well optimized. In the worst case, it could take upwards of 20 SQL round-trips before your push operation was completed. This was mainly due to poor design choices, mostly motivated by DRY (Don’t Repeat Yourself (Don’t Repeat Yourself)), which tried to leverage more generalized and less efficient code used by the web application to perform some of these steps. In the best case, the new approach makes only one SQL round-trip for pulls, or 2 round-trips for a push.

A major misstep was, in the process of optimizing these steps, the decision to move some of this logic into the web application. Python isn’t very good at asynchronous operations, and Sourcehut’s codebase pre-dates asyncio. We use Gunicorn as our web daemon, which runs several worker processes to handle web requests. At one point, to reduce the Python startup time, I thought it would be smart to bundle up all of your information in a little HTTP request and shoot it over to the web worker, which already had a SQL connection and a warm Python VM.

However, the process was still very slow even with those bottlenecks removed - which was a huge problem. Because there are a fixed number of web workers, and they can only do one thing at a time, the addition of processing complicated git push logic to their workload would quickly pin workers, causing the web application and git pushes to slow. Before I fixed this mistake, the average time for an HTTP request and a git push were pushing 60 seconds. That was an awful, terrible, no good, very bad idea.

Now we’re fast! Or are we?

Astute observers and frequent git-pushers may notice that the ideal performance of git pushes on git.sr.ht have been vastly improved, to the point of often appearing instant, but they are not consistently that fast. There is one remaining bottleneck: I/O throughput. When git.sr.ht’s servers are busy, we can still tie up I/O serving various other users before we get to your requests. This is a limitation of our current hardware deployment, which is more I/O bound than anything else. To address this last bottleneck, new server hardware is being provisioned, with different I/O constraints, and git.sr.ht will be moving to it as soon as it arrives and is put together. And then we’ll be blazing fast, all the time, hooray! At least until we can afford better peering…


  1. setuid changes the user identity of the current process. [return]
  2. exec replaces the current process with another. [return]