-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
feat(gossipsub): fallible sequence number generation and error handling #6211
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
Open
onur-ozkan
wants to merge
2
commits into
libp2p:master
Choose a base branch
from
onur-ozkan:better-sequence-numbering
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
Generally I agree that we should avoid all possible panics.
That said, I think in both cases here it's safe to assume that they won't panic. If the system time of a user is this far of they'll' run into major issues anyway. And I don't think the sequence number can ever go above 2**64.
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 am aware that panicking is unlikely here. I only added it as an improvement. The real issue was that the doc comment referred to milliseconds but the code was actually using nanoseconds.
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.
Ah yeah, you are right. Changing to milliseconds sounds good to me, or alternatively just fix the docs.
Technically, we do violate backwards compatibility because with this change the sequence number of all peers will "jump" back to a much lower value. By linearity increasing, a peer could eventually start re-using numbers that have been used in the past, which violates the specs: https://github.com/libp2p/specs/blob/69c4fdf5da3a07d2f392df6a892c07256c1885c0/pubsub/README.md?plain=1#L136-L142
That said, I don't think it will ever happen in practice. The old ns-based sequence numbers are a such huge fraction larger than the new ms-based ones will ever be. cc @jxs