Skip to content

fix: do not ignore result of ensure_recv_open #687

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jul 24, 2023
Merged

fix: do not ignore result of ensure_recv_open #687

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
e4039e7
fix: do not ignore result of `ensure_recv_open`
DDtKey Jun 5, 2023
1cf443f
style: fix fmt
DDtKey Jun 6, 2023
112592b
Merge branch 'master' into fix-ensure_recv_open-false-result
DDtKey Jul 20, 2023
e92e083
fix: return errors instead empty result
DDtKey Jul 21, 2023
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 7 additions & 1 deletion src/proto/streams/recv.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -318,7 +318,13 @@ impl Recv {
Some(Event::Headers(Client(response))) => Poll::Ready(Ok(response)),
Some(_) => panic!("poll_response called after response returned"),
None => {
stream.state.ensure_recv_open()?;
if !stream.state.ensure_recv_open()? {
proto_err!(stream: "poll_response: stream={:?} is not opened;", stream.id);
return Poll::Ready(Err(Error::library_reset(
stream.id,
Reason::PROTOCOL_ERROR,
)));
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So, if recv is NOT open, should it be returning a new empty response? Or is that an error in this context? It would be good to include a code comment here to remind us why, in either case.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@DDtKey DDtKey Jun 6, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was relying on similar logic here and here, it just forces to mark future as ready without error.

However, it's still not so clear what would be the more correct way, because Result<bool, Error> is confusing and probably should be refactored somehow. What I know for sure: bool shouldn't be ignored.

But for now I wanted to address the issue with simple & partially existed logic: if ensure_recv_open tells us it's not an error but stream is closed, it shouldn't be error. Otherwise we need to think how it can be refactored. Any ideas?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hm. Is there a way to build a test for this? That might help make it clearer what should actually be done.


stream.recv_task = Some(cx.waker().clone());
Poll::Pending
Expand Down
6 changes: 5 additions & 1 deletion src/proto/streams/streams.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -726,7 +726,11 @@ impl Inner {
}

// The stream must be receive open
stream.state.ensure_recv_open()?;
if !stream.state.ensure_recv_open()? {
proto_err!(conn: "recv_push_promise: initiating stream is not opened");
return Err(Error::library_go_away(Reason::PROTOCOL_ERROR));
}

stream.key()
}
None => {
Expand Down