[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GNUnet-developers] Cadet bug: blocked cadet channel in case of non
From: |
Schanzenbach, Martin |
Subject: |
Re: [GNUnet-developers] Cadet bug: blocked cadet channel in case of non reliablle channel |
Date: |
Sun, 24 Feb 2019 22:36:59 +0100 |
I think changes in the queue eviction are unproblematic.
The bulk transmission of messages makes me worry a bit as CADET seems to have a
special logic for that including (local) client ACKs so you needn't worry about
that at that point anyway.
> On 24. Feb 2019, at 22:09, t3sserakt <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Hey Martin,
>
> my proposal will not deliver messages out of order.
>
> It just will not wait for a message to appear and drop another message
> we already received instead.
>
> On 24.02.19 21:50, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> a quick look into the bug (not a CADET expert) makes me questions the
>> proposed behaviour:
>>
>> "Proposal how to change that behavior:
>>
>> We will not drop the oldest message in the queue, but we send as much
>> messages from the queue as we have messages with consecutive MIDs. After
>> that the queue is empty, or we again wait for the message that is missing
>> now. Means we have to set the expected MID to that MID, because we are now
>> waiting for another message to arrive."
>>
>> Now, looking at the API of CADET, this channel has the following description:
>>
>> /**
>> * Default options: unreliable, default buffering, not out of order.
>> */
>> GNUNET_CADET_OPTION_DEFAULT = 0x0,
>>
>>
>> Ergo, messages are _not_ delivered out of order. But that seems to be what
>> you propose?
>> The transport is unreliable. So if you need any other behaviour, don't you
>> just want a different OPTION? There are a few to choose from with that
>> behaviour, no?
>>
>> BR
>>
>>> On 24. Feb 2019, at 21:33, t3sserakt <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>> Signed PGP part
>>> Hey *,
>>>
>>> please have a look onto this finding:
>>>
>>> https://bugs.gnunet.org/view.php?id=5597
>>>
>>> If nobody has a veto, I would change the behavior of non reliable cadet
>>> channels, as I proposed in the bug description.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>
>>> t3sserakt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP