Cause
It's a race on shared state between threads. current_user is a class attribute, so every thread in a gunicorn worker process reads and writes the same slot. With --threads 4, two requests can interleave like this:
| Thread A (user Alice) | Thread B (user Bob) |
|---|---|
CartView.current_user = Alice |
|
_cart_cache.get(alice.id) → miss |
|
CartView.current_user = Bob |
|
load_cart(CartView.current_user) → loads Bob's cart |
|
_cart_cache[alice.id] = Bob's cart |
Alice is shown Bob's cart. Two details make it worse:
- The bad entry sticks. The wrong cart is stored in
_cart_cacheunder Alice's id. Her later requests to that worker hit the cache and keep showing Bob's cart until the process restarts. So one short race turns into a lasting leak for that user on that worker. - The key and the value come from different sources. The cache key uses the thread-local
request.user.id, but the value is loaded from the sharedCartView.current_user. Nothing checks that the two refer to the same user.
Why only production, and why rarely
-
Staging (
--threads 1): each worker process handles one request at a time, so nothing else can overwritecurrent_userbetween the write and the read. The bug can't happen there. Separate gunicorn workers are separate processes, so they don't share the class attribute. -
Production (
--threads 4): requests share the attribute. It only goes wrong when all three of these line up:- a cache miss (first visit to that worker, or after a restart)
- a second request writes
current_userin the short gap beforeload_cartreads it - the GIL switches threads at exactly that point
That combination fits "once in a few hundred requests."
How to confirm it before changing anything
These checks are cheap. I haven't run any of them; this diagnosis comes from reading the code.
- Log the mismatch. Temporarily log a warning in production or in a load test whenever
CartView.current_user.id != request.user.idjust beforeload_cart. Any hit proves this mechanism. - Reproduce in staging. Run staging with
--threads 4and send concurrent requests from many different users to the cart page. A fresh worker gives the most cache misses. Then check which user's items each response contains. Running the same load with--threads 1should show zero leaks. - Force it in a test. Make
load_cartsleep briefly or wait on athreading.Barrier, then callCartView().get()from two threads with different users. This reproduces it every time. - Check that it persists. Once a user has seen a wrong cart, their repeat requests to the same worker should keep showing that same wrong cart. Restarting the worker should clear it. If that's what happens, the cache is what turns the race into a lasting leak.
If check 1 or 2 fires, the cause is confirmed. Note that any fix will also need to clear the poisoned entries in _cart_cache, either by restarting the workers or by discarding the cache. Holding off on the fix as you asked.
Real run recorded with claude-code / claude-opus-5-5. Output is shown verbatim, unmodified.
它做什么
一条面向原因不明故障的简短工作规则:先收集证据、确定原因,再改业务代码。
工作方式
- 把观察到的现象和推测的原因分开。
- 追踪输入、状态变化和模块边界,按证据强弱和排除成本给各个假设排序。
- 在找到能解释全部证据的机制之前不改代码;找到后报告原因和证据。除非任务明确要求修复,否则不动手修。
适合场景
偶发 bug、性能退化,以及"测试环境正常、生产环境出错"这类问题。
需要了解
出自开源项目 Caveman 的一组通用工作方式。指令本身不带 Caveman 品牌,放到任何项目里都能用。
纯指令文件:没有脚本、不联网、不写文件。 压缩包里另有 LICENSE、NOTICE 和 agents/openai.yaml(供 Codex 使用的显示名和默认提示词)。