[Merged by Bors] - Correct a race condition when dialing peers #4056
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
if looks like you need to bump our msrv, also if you think it's fine, could we bump the |
|
Updated the MSRV, I dont think |
|
oh yeah that was a gross misreading on my part, it's the discv5 one |
divagant-martian
approved these changes
Mar 14, 2023
AgeManning
added
ready-for-merge
|
bors r+ |
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 16, 2023
There is a race condition which occurs when multiple discovery queries return at almost the exact same time and they independently contain a useful peer we would like to connect to. The condition can occur that we can add the same peer to the dial queue, before we get a chance to process the queue. This ends up displaying an error to the user: ``` ERRO Dialing an already dialing peer ``` Although this error is harmless it's not ideal. There are two solutions to resolving this: 1. As we decide to dial the peer, we change the state in the peer-db to dialing (before we add it to the queue) which would prevent other requests from adding to the queue. 2. We prevent duplicates in the dial queue This PR has opted for 2. because 1. will complicate the code in that we are changing states in non-intuitive places. Although this technically adds a very slight performance cost, its probably a cleaner solution as we can keep the state-changing logic in one place.
bors
bot
changed the title
Woodpile37
pushed a commit
to Woodpile37/lighthouse
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2024
There is a race condition which occurs when multiple discovery queries return at almost the exact same time and they independently contain a useful peer we would like to connect to. The condition can occur that we can add the same peer to the dial queue, before we get a chance to process the queue. This ends up displaying an error to the user: ``` ERRO Dialing an already dialing peer ``` Although this error is harmless it's not ideal. There are two solutions to resolving this: 1. As we decide to dial the peer, we change the state in the peer-db to dialing (before we add it to the queue) which would prevent other requests from adding to the queue. 2. We prevent duplicates in the dial queue This PR has opted for 2. because 1. will complicate the code in that we are changing states in non-intuitive places. Although this technically adds a very slight performance cost, its probably a cleaner solution as we can keep the state-changing logic in one place.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There is a race condition which occurs when multiple discovery queries return at almost the exact same time and they independently contain a useful peer we would like to connect to.
The condition can occur that we can add the same peer to the dial queue, before we get a chance to process the queue.
This ends up displaying an error to the user:
Although this error is harmless it's not ideal.
There are two solutions to resolving this:
This PR has opted for 2. because 1. will complicate the code in that we are changing states in non-intuitive places. Although this technically adds a very slight performance cost, its probably a cleaner solution as we can keep the state-changing logic in one place.