You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 23, 2024. It is now read-only.
Is it by design that the sender example starts the transfer without checking if the requested packet id matches the registered one?
In large_packet_sender.c:
PROCESS_THREAD(reply_to_request_proc, ev, data)
{
PROCESS_BEGIN();
while (1) {
PROCESS_WAIT_EVENT_UNTIL(ev == event_lp_requested);
lp_event_requested_data_t req_data = *(lp_event_requested_data_t *) data;
/* ... */
large_packet_tx.node_addr = req_data.src;
large_packet_tx.node_port = req_data.src_port;
large_packet_tx.id = req_data.packet_id; // The registered id is overwritten with requested one.
large_packet_tx.mask = req_data.mask;
large_packet_tx.period_ms = req_data.period_ms;
RUN_CHECK(large_packet_send(&large_packet_tx));
}
PROCESS_END();
}
This can be a potential bug, when a sender node restarts in between the transfer, and rejoins quickly enough to hear the request for missing sub-packets.
When this happens, the sender starts to send a nonexistent packet.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Is it by design that the sender example starts the transfer without checking if the requested packet id matches the registered one?
In large_packet_sender.c:
This can be a potential bug, when a sender node restarts in between the transfer, and rejoins quickly enough to hear the
request for missing sub-packets
.When this happens, the sender starts to send a nonexistent packet.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: