fix: Replace find_path_with_rebinding with find_path
#2176
+4
−50
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
We need to do a path challenge even if only the remote port changes.
larseggert
requested review from
KershawChang,
martinthomson and
mxinden
as code owners
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2176 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 95.39% 95.38% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 112 112
Lines 36373 36338 -35
==========================================
- Hits 34697 34661 -36
- Misses 1676 1677 +1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Failed Interop TestsQUIC Interop Runner, client vs. server neqo-latest as client
neqo-latest as server
All resultsSucceeded Interop TestsQUIC Interop Runner, client vs. server neqo-latest as client
neqo-latest as server
Unsupported Interop TestsQUIC Interop Runner, client vs. server neqo-latest as client
neqo-latest as server
|
Benchmark resultsPerformance differences relative to 62415bf. coalesce_acked_from_zero 1+1 entries: 💚 Performance has improved. time: [88.804 ns 89.105 ns 89.406 ns]
change: [-11.058% -10.676% -10.275%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
coalesce_acked_from_zero 3+1 entries: 💚 Performance has improved. time: [99.599 ns 99.944 ns 100.31 ns]
change: [-17.047% -16.098% -15.343%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
coalesce_acked_from_zero 10+1 entries: 💚 Performance has improved. time: [99.086 ns 99.463 ns 99.934 ns]
change: [-16.187% -15.523% -14.812%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
coalesce_acked_from_zero 1000+1 entries: 💚 Performance has improved. time: [78.147 ns 78.289 ns 78.452 ns]
change: [-20.693% -19.826% -18.936%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
RxStreamOrderer::inbound_frame(): Change within noise threshold. time: [111.59 ms 111.64 ms 111.68 ms]
change: [+0.4174% +0.4822% +0.5464%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
transfer/pacing-false/varying-seeds: No change in performance detected. time: [25.909 ms 27.015 ms 28.114 ms]
change: [-6.5143% -1.1814% +4.3327%] (p = 0.67 > 0.05)
transfer/pacing-true/varying-seeds: No change in performance detected. time: [33.675 ms 35.149 ms 36.637 ms]
change: [-6.9395% -1.0472% +5.4396%] (p = 0.73 > 0.05)
transfer/pacing-false/same-seed: No change in performance detected. time: [25.496 ms 26.248 ms 26.991 ms]
change: [-2.8083% +1.2463% +5.7304%] (p = 0.55 > 0.05)
transfer/pacing-true/same-seed: No change in performance detected. time: [39.700 ms 41.676 ms 43.701 ms]
change: [-4.7132% +1.1022% +8.3606%] (p = 0.74 > 0.05)
1-conn/1-100mb-resp (aka. Download)/client: No change in performance detected. time: [113.14 ms 113.72 ms 114.28 ms]
thrpt: [875.02 MiB/s 879.37 MiB/s 883.86 MiB/s]
change:
time: [-0.6648% +0.0154% +0.6470%] (p = 0.96 > 0.05)
thrpt: [-0.6429% -0.0154% +0.6692%]
1-conn/10_000-parallel-1b-resp (aka. RPS)/client: No change in performance detected. time: [313.54 ms 317.20 ms 320.84 ms]
thrpt: [31.169 Kelem/s 31.526 Kelem/s 31.894 Kelem/s]
change:
time: [-1.1490% +0.5558% +2.2936%] (p = 0.53 > 0.05)
thrpt: [-2.2422% -0.5527% +1.1624%]
1-conn/1-1b-resp (aka. HPS)/client: No change in performance detected. time: [34.042 ms 34.273 ms 34.523 ms]
thrpt: [28.967 elem/s 29.178 elem/s 29.375 elem/s]
change:
time: [-0.6345% +0.3546% +1.3443%] (p = 0.48 > 0.05)
thrpt: [-1.3264% -0.3534% +0.6385%]
Client/server transfer resultsTransfer of 33554432 bytes over loopback.
|
mxinden
reviewed
Oct 16, 2024
Comment on lines
-103
to
-104
| /// We use this when the other side migrates to skip address validation and | ||
| /// creating a new path. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why did we previously skip address validation on port change?
If I understand RFC 9000 correctly, the port is always part of the validation process:
In path validation, endpoints test reachability between a specific local address and a specific peer address, where an address is the 2-tuple of IP address and port.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@martinthomson might know?
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.
We need to do a path challenge even if only the remote port changes.
This makes us pass the
rebind-portQNS test.