Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 34.2k
dgram: copy the array when using the list variant in send()#6804
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Conversation
mcollina commented May 17, 2016 • edited
Loading Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
edited
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
jasnell commented May 17, 2016
LGTM if CI is green. |
mcollina commented May 17, 2016
mcollina commented May 17, 2016
This should be backported to v5. |
mcollina commented May 19, 2016
There are some failures on freebsd and smartos, I think they are transient, rerunning: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/2697/ |
bnoordhuis commented May 19, 2016
LGTM but bonus points if you also add a fix + regression test for the empty array case. It's okay to do it in a separate commit because it's arguably a separate issue. Aside: I'm slightly surprised the linter accepts the assign-in-if syntax. But if the linter is okay with it, then I am, too. |
mcollina commented May 19, 2016
@bnoordhuis done, I'm adding an empty buffer if the array is empty, or do you think that throwing will be better? |
lib/dgram.js Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's more of a personal preference but can you use buffer.push(...)? That makes it clear we're appending, not replacing, without having to look at the surrounding code.
bnoordhuis commented May 19, 2016
A small nit about the first commit: the first line of the commit log should be <= 50 characters. While you're working on |
c9e6e80 to 09604f8Comparemcollina commented May 19, 2016
@bnoordhuis update with the nit you asked! Let me know if you are ok with this, and I'll land it. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we get rid of the timer?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes. It allows fast-failures, otherwise you rely on the 1 minute timeout that each tests has.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, but these kind of timers have been source of flaky tests. I don't think relying in the test runner timeout is a bad idea.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The problem are not the timers, UDP messages can get lost: that's why the tests are flaky. If it has not arrived after 200ms (adjusted for platforms), it will never arrive. We might discuss on increasing those timeouts to reduce the likelyhood of missing a "right" message.
There will always be flaky tests on UDP if we want high coverage.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I understand that: it's UDP.
But I think these kind timers (the test is taking longer than expected so we throw) should only exist when testing timing related features (timers, connection timers, etc.) otherwise the test runner should catch them. I think @Trott made some good points here: nodejs/testing#27 (comment).
Anyway, I'm fine either way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
All tests of UDP are done in the same way. If we want to change those, we can (and probably we should). It's definite a different PR as this is becoming more and more full of stuff.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It makes sense to me.
mcollina commented May 19, 2016
@santigimeno I've updated the tests. BTW, should we kick off @nodejs/dgram? Let me know if anybody would like to change anything else :) These looks like 4 independent commits, what metadata should I apply to those in the message editing phase? |
mcollina commented May 19, 2016
lib/dgram.js Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
list is a better name for the argument and, arguably, fixBufferList for the function.
bnoordhuis commented May 19, 2016
There are failures on the OS X and ARM buildbots. The FreeBSD test failure appears to be unrelated. |
27e05fb to 05ad943Comparemcollina commented May 23, 2016
@bnoordhuis addressed your nits. new CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/2735/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
common.platformTimeout(200)
bnoordhuis commented May 23, 2016
LGTM with comment. Was your plan to squash the last two commits into the first two? |
mcollina commented May 23, 2016
@bnoordhuis I still see 4 commits, or maybe I did some mistake on git and github is not picking that up. |
05ad943 to 4bbdb54Comparemcollina commented May 23, 2016
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/2736/ I did a couple of fix to avoid some flakyness. |
4bbdb54 to 8a3d435Comparemcollina commented May 23, 2016
new CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/2737/ |
mcollina commented May 23, 2016
new new CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/2739/ |
8a3d435 to bcaa1c9Comparemcollina commented May 23, 2016
Again with some changes: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/2740/ |
mcollina commented May 24, 2016 • edited
Loading Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
edited
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
@nodejs/build can you please have a look at the 'parallel/test-dgram-send-empty-array ' test in this PR on OS X? I think it should pass, but it is currently failing and I cannot understand why. I've run it thousands of times here and I got zero failures. This is the last run: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-osx/3487/nodes=osx1010/tapTestReport/ |
cjihrig commented May 24, 2016
Any chance that this is nodejs/node-v0.x-archive#8023 resurfacing? You could try removing the skip in https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/test/parallel/test-dgram-empty-packet.js and running the CI on OS X. |
7e1a6c9 to 1b8c3e2Comparemcollina commented May 24, 2016
@cjihrig it should be it. Maybe the CI box is not running El Capitan? |
1b8c3e2 to 7b65d94Comparemcollina commented May 24, 2016
Thanks @cjihrig for the support, that was it. New CI with the fix: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/2770/ |
mcollina commented May 24, 2016
ci passing, @jasnell@bnoordhuis please give a last pass before I merge. |
bnoordhuis commented May 24, 2016
LGTM but I only gave it a real quick look-over this time around. |
This commit fix a possible crash situation in dgram send(). A crash is possible if an array is passed, and then altered after the send call, as the call to libuv is wrapped in process.nextTick(). Fixes: nodejs#6616
Sending an empty array was crashing in libuv, this commit allocates an empty buffer to allow sending an empty array.
nits about variable names and push()
Fixes situations were some events were not asserted to be emitted. Removed some flakyness from tests.
7b65d94 to e1a4eeeComparemcollina commented May 25, 2016
CI after rebase https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/2777/ (didn't apply cleanly) |
jasnell commented May 25, 2016
LGTM |
jasnell commented May 25, 2016
@mcollina ... saw your question in IRC re: squashing the commits or not.... I would go ahead and squash before landing |
mcollina commented May 26, 2016
Landed as c14e98b. |
This commit fix a possible crash situation in dgram send(). A crash is possible if an array is passed, and then altered after the send call, as the call to libuv is wrapped in process.nextTick(). It also avoid sending an empty array to libuv by allocating an empty buffer. It also does some cleanup inside send() to increase readability. It removes test flakyness by use common.mustCall and common.platformTimeout. Fixes situations were some events were not asserted to be emitted. Fixes: #6616 PR-URL: #6804 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>
This commit fix a possible crash situation in dgram send(). A crash is possible if an array is passed, and then altered after the send call, as the call to libuv is wrapped in process.nextTick(). It also avoid sending an empty array to libuv by allocating an empty buffer. It also does some cleanup inside send() to increase readability. It removes test flakyness by use common.mustCall and common.platformTimeout. Fixes situations were some events were not asserted to be emitted. Fixes: nodejs#6616 PR-URL: nodejs#6804 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>
This commit fix a possible crash situation in dgram send(). A crash is possible if an array is passed, and then altered after the send call, as the call to libuv is wrapped in process.nextTick(). It also avoid sending an empty array to libuv by allocating an empty buffer. It also does some cleanup inside send() to increase readability. It removes test flakyness by use common.mustCall and common.platformTimeout. Fixes situations were some events were not asserted to be emitted. Fixes: #6616 PR-URL: #6804 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>
MylesBorins commented Jul 11, 2016
@mcollina lts? |
mcollina commented Jul 12, 2016
@thealphanerd this depends on #4374, which hasn't been ported yet. I'm 👍 on both. |
MylesBorins commented Jul 12, 2016
I'm going to assume that #4374 will not land in LTS as it does not increase stability. As such I will label this as don't land for now. |
mcollina commented Jul 12, 2016
I'm neutral, the only reason to have it on the v4 like is to encourage adoption of this API. It's not that useful with support only on v5 and v6. But, I agree with you that it does not increase stability. |
Checklist
Affected core subsystem(s)
dgram
Description of change
This commit fix a possible crash situation in dgram send().
A crash is possible if an array is passed, and then altered after the
send call, as the call to libuv is wrapped in process.nextTick().
This PR slightly slow things down (1-2%) on Mac OS X, let me know if we should do a full performance review.
Fixes: #6616
cc @bnoordhuis @brown-dragon