Skip to content
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

dgram: copy the array when using the list variant in send() #6804

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

mcollina
Copy link
Member

@mcollina mcollina commented May 17, 2016

Checklist
  • tests and code linting passes
  • a test and/or benchmark is included
  • the commit message follows commit guidelines
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

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the dgram Issues and PRs related to the dgram subsystem / UDP. label May 17, 2016
@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented May 17, 2016

LGTM if CI is green.

@mcollina
Copy link
Member Author

@mcollina
Copy link
Member Author

This should be backported to v5.

@mcollina
Copy link
Member Author

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
Copy link
Member

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
Copy link
Member Author

@bnoordhuis done, I'm adding an empty buffer if the array is empty, or do you think that throwing will be better?

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/2699/.

@@ -346,6 +346,9 @@ Socket.prototype.send = function(buffer,
if (self._bindState == BIND_STATE_UNBOUND)
self.bind({port: 0, exclusive: true}, null);

if (buffer.length === 0)
buffer[0] = Buffer.allocUnsafe(0);
Copy link
Member

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
Copy link
Member

A small nit about the first commit: the first line of the commit log should be <= 50 characters.

While you're working on send(), can I suggest introducing a local variable called e.g. list? Replacing the buffer argument with the processed result is less clear, IMO.

@mcollina mcollina force-pushed the dgram-multi-buffer-copy branch from c9e6e80 to 09604f8 Compare May 19, 2016 13:33
@mcollina
Copy link
Member Author

@bnoordhuis update with the nit you asked!

Let me know if you are ok with this, and I'll land it.


const timer = setTimeout(function() {
throw new Error('Timeout');
}, common.platformTimeout(200));
Copy link
Member

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?

Copy link
Member Author

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.

Copy link
Member

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.

Copy link
Member Author

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.

Copy link
Member

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.

Copy link
Member Author

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.

Copy link
Member

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
Copy link
Member Author

@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
Copy link
Member Author

@@ -264,15 +264,19 @@ function sliceBuffer(buffer, offset, length) {


function fixBuffer(buffer) {
Copy link
Member

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
Copy link
Member

There are failures on the OS X and ARM buildbots. The FreeBSD test failure appears to be unrelated.

@mcollina mcollina force-pushed the dgram-multi-buffer-copy branch from 27e05fb to 05ad943 Compare May 23, 2016 07:12
@mcollina
Copy link
Member Author

@bnoordhuis addressed your nits.

new CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/2735/

len = buf.length - offset;
const timer = setTimeout(function() {
throw new Error('Timeout');
}, 200);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

common.platformTimeout(200)

@bnoordhuis
Copy link
Member

LGTM with comment. Was your plan to squash the last two commits into the first two?

@mcollina
Copy link
Member Author

@bnoordhuis I still see 4 commits, or maybe I did some mistake on git and github is not picking that up.

@mcollina mcollina force-pushed the dgram-multi-buffer-copy branch from 05ad943 to 4bbdb54 Compare May 23, 2016 08:12
@mcollina
Copy link
Member Author

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/2736/

I did a couple of fix to avoid some flakyness.

@mcollina mcollina force-pushed the dgram-multi-buffer-copy branch from 4bbdb54 to 8a3d435 Compare May 23, 2016 08:22
@mcollina
Copy link
Member Author

new CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/2737/
(test was failing in the previous one)

@mcollina
Copy link
Member Author

new new CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/2739/
(sigh, lots of unrelated failures on SmartOS & others :/)

@mcollina mcollina force-pushed the dgram-multi-buffer-copy branch from 8a3d435 to bcaa1c9 Compare May 23, 2016 10:09
@mcollina
Copy link
Member Author

Again with some changes: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/2740/

@mcollina
Copy link
Member Author

mcollina commented May 24, 2016

@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
Copy link
Contributor

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.

@mcollina mcollina force-pushed the dgram-multi-buffer-copy branch from 7e1a6c9 to 1b8c3e2 Compare May 24, 2016 17:24
@mcollina
Copy link
Member Author

@cjihrig it should be it. Maybe the CI box is not running El Capitan?

@mcollina mcollina force-pushed the dgram-multi-buffer-copy branch from 1b8c3e2 to 7b65d94 Compare May 24, 2016 17:58
@mcollina
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks @cjihrig for the support, that was it.

New CI with the fix: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/2770/

@mcollina
Copy link
Member Author

ci passing, @jasnell @bnoordhuis please give a last pass before I merge.

@bnoordhuis
Copy link
Member

LGTM but I only gave it a real quick look-over this time around.

mcollina added 4 commits May 25, 2016 09:35
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.
@mcollina mcollina force-pushed the dgram-multi-buffer-copy branch from 7b65d94 to e1a4eee Compare May 25, 2016 07:45
@mcollina
Copy link
Member Author

CI after rebase https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/2777/ (didn't apply cleanly)

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented May 25, 2016

LGTM

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

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
Copy link
Member Author

Landed as c14e98b.

@mcollina mcollina closed this May 26, 2016
mcollina added a commit that referenced this pull request May 26, 2016
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 <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Fishrock123 pushed a commit to Fishrock123/node that referenced this pull request May 30, 2016
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 <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
rvagg pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 2, 2016
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 <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
@MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor

@mcollina lts?

@mcollina
Copy link
Member Author

@thealphanerd this depends on #4374, which hasn't been ported yet. I'm 👍 on both.

@MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor

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.
Please feel free to open a backport PR or issue on the LTS repo so the WG can discuss it if you think we should include it in v4.5.0

@mcollina
Copy link
Member Author

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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
dgram Issues and PRs related to the dgram subsystem / UDP.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

dgram: socket.send() crash when input array is modified
7 participants