Closed
Conversation
Fixs two issues in `TLSWrap`, one of them is reported in nodejs#30896. 1. `TLSWrap` has exactly one `StreamListener`, however, that `StreamListener` can be replaced. We have not been rigorous enough here: if an active write has not been finished before the transition, the finish callback of it will be wrongly fired the successor `StreamListener`. 2. A `TLSWrap` does not allow more than one active write, as checked in the assertion about current_write in `TLSWrap::DoWrite()`. However, when users make use of an existing `tls.TLSSocket` to establish double TLS, by either tls.connect({socket: tlssock}) or tlsServer.emit('connection', tlssock) we have both of the user provided `tls.TLSSocket`, tlssock and a brand new created `TLSWrap` writing to the `TLSWrap` bound to tlssock, which easily violates the constranint because two writers have no idea of each other. The design of the fix is: when a `TLSWrap` is created on top of a user provided socket, do not send any data to the socket until all existing writes of the socket are done and ensure registered callbacks of those writes can be fired.
Format code.
Remove unnecessary saving of `this` for arrow function.
Fix typo
Introduce enum UnderlyingStreamWriteStatus.
Collaborator
|
Review requested:
|
nodejs-github-bot
added
c++
Format code
Contributor
Author
|
@mhdawson PTAL |
Member
Contributor
Author
Member
Member
|
@ywave620 sorry for the confusion. Seems I missed pushing the commit for the last PR to main somehow. So this is what we need:) |
github-actions
bot
removed
the
request-ci
Collaborator
jasnell
approved these changes
Aug 3, 2023
Collaborator
Member
|
Windows failure was a known flaky test, resumed build. |
Collaborator
Member
|
osx failures look unrelated to this PR. |
Collaborator
Member
|
This time failure looked like a machine issue, resuming again. |
Collaborator
Member
|
And again 2 tests with issues indicating they are flaky on windows, resumed again. |
25 tasks
ShogunPanda
approved these changes
Aug 4, 2023
This was referenced Aug 4, 2023
pluris
pushed a commit
to pluris/node
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 6, 2023
Fixs two issues in `TLSWrap`, one of them is reported in nodejs#30896. 1. `TLSWrap` has exactly one `StreamListener`, however, that `StreamListener` can be replaced. We have not been rigorous enough here: if an active write has not been finished before the transition, the finish callback of it will be wrongly fired the successor `StreamListener`. 2. A `TLSWrap` does not allow more than one active write, as checked in the assertion about current_write in `TLSWrap::DoWrite()`. However, when users make use of an existing `tls.TLSSocket` to establish double TLS, by either tls.connect({socket: tlssock}) or tlsServer.emit('connection', tlssock) we have both of the user provided `tls.TLSSocket`, tlssock and a brand new created `TLSWrap` writing to the `TLSWrap` bound to tlssock, which easily violates the constranint because two writers have no idea of each other. The design of the fix is: when a `TLSWrap` is created on top of a user provided socket, do not send any data to the socket until all existing writes of the socket are done and ensure registered callbacks of those writes can be fired. PR-URL: nodejs#48969 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Paolo Insogna <[email protected]>
pluris
pushed a commit
to pluris/node
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 7, 2023
Fixs two issues in `TLSWrap`, one of them is reported in nodejs#30896. 1. `TLSWrap` has exactly one `StreamListener`, however, that `StreamListener` can be replaced. We have not been rigorous enough here: if an active write has not been finished before the transition, the finish callback of it will be wrongly fired the successor `StreamListener`. 2. A `TLSWrap` does not allow more than one active write, as checked in the assertion about current_write in `TLSWrap::DoWrite()`. However, when users make use of an existing `tls.TLSSocket` to establish double TLS, by either tls.connect({socket: tlssock}) or tlsServer.emit('connection', tlssock) we have both of the user provided `tls.TLSSocket`, tlssock and a brand new created `TLSWrap` writing to the `TLSWrap` bound to tlssock, which easily violates the constranint because two writers have no idea of each other. The design of the fix is: when a `TLSWrap` is created on top of a user provided socket, do not send any data to the socket until all existing writes of the socket are done and ensure registered callbacks of those writes can be fired. PR-URL: nodejs#48969 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Paolo Insogna <[email protected]>
29 tasks
Ceres6
pushed a commit
to Ceres6/node
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 14, 2023
Fixs two issues in `TLSWrap`, one of them is reported in nodejs#30896. 1. `TLSWrap` has exactly one `StreamListener`, however, that `StreamListener` can be replaced. We have not been rigorous enough here: if an active write has not been finished before the transition, the finish callback of it will be wrongly fired the successor `StreamListener`. 2. A `TLSWrap` does not allow more than one active write, as checked in the assertion about current_write in `TLSWrap::DoWrite()`. However, when users make use of an existing `tls.TLSSocket` to establish double TLS, by either tls.connect({socket: tlssock}) or tlsServer.emit('connection', tlssock) we have both of the user provided `tls.TLSSocket`, tlssock and a brand new created `TLSWrap` writing to the `TLSWrap` bound to tlssock, which easily violates the constranint because two writers have no idea of each other. The design of the fix is: when a `TLSWrap` is created on top of a user provided socket, do not send any data to the socket until all existing writes of the socket are done and ensure registered callbacks of those writes can be fired. PR-URL: nodejs#48969 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Paolo Insogna <[email protected]>
Ceres6
pushed a commit
to Ceres6/node
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 14, 2023
Fixs two issues in `TLSWrap`, one of them is reported in nodejs#30896. 1. `TLSWrap` has exactly one `StreamListener`, however, that `StreamListener` can be replaced. We have not been rigorous enough here: if an active write has not been finished before the transition, the finish callback of it will be wrongly fired the successor `StreamListener`. 2. A `TLSWrap` does not allow more than one active write, as checked in the assertion about current_write in `TLSWrap::DoWrite()`. However, when users make use of an existing `tls.TLSSocket` to establish double TLS, by either tls.connect({socket: tlssock}) or tlsServer.emit('connection', tlssock) we have both of the user provided `tls.TLSSocket`, tlssock and a brand new created `TLSWrap` writing to the `TLSWrap` bound to tlssock, which easily violates the constranint because two writers have no idea of each other. The design of the fix is: when a `TLSWrap` is created on top of a user provided socket, do not send any data to the socket until all existing writes of the socket are done and ensure registered callbacks of those writes can be fired. PR-URL: nodejs#48969 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Paolo Insogna <[email protected]>
UlisesGascon
pushed a commit
to UlisesGascon/node
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 14, 2023
Fixs two issues in `TLSWrap`, one of them is reported in nodejs#30896. 1. `TLSWrap` has exactly one `StreamListener`, however, that `StreamListener` can be replaced. We have not been rigorous enough here: if an active write has not been finished before the transition, the finish callback of it will be wrongly fired the successor `StreamListener`. 2. A `TLSWrap` does not allow more than one active write, as checked in the assertion about current_write in `TLSWrap::DoWrite()`. However, when users make use of an existing `tls.TLSSocket` to establish double TLS, by either tls.connect({socket: tlssock}) or tlsServer.emit('connection', tlssock) we have both of the user provided `tls.TLSSocket`, tlssock and a brand new created `TLSWrap` writing to the `TLSWrap` bound to tlssock, which easily violates the constranint because two writers have no idea of each other. The design of the fix is: when a `TLSWrap` is created on top of a user provided socket, do not send any data to the socket until all existing writes of the socket are done and ensure registered callbacks of those writes can be fired. PR-URL: nodejs#48969 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Paolo Insogna <[email protected]>
ruyadorno
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 14, 2023
Fixs two issues in `TLSWrap`, one of them is reported in #30896. 1. `TLSWrap` has exactly one `StreamListener`, however, that `StreamListener` can be replaced. We have not been rigorous enough here: if an active write has not been finished before the transition, the finish callback of it will be wrongly fired the successor `StreamListener`. 2. A `TLSWrap` does not allow more than one active write, as checked in the assertion about current_write in `TLSWrap::DoWrite()`. However, when users make use of an existing `tls.TLSSocket` to establish double TLS, by either tls.connect({socket: tlssock}) or tlsServer.emit('connection', tlssock) we have both of the user provided `tls.TLSSocket`, tlssock and a brand new created `TLSWrap` writing to the `TLSWrap` bound to tlssock, which easily violates the constranint because two writers have no idea of each other. The design of the fix is: when a `TLSWrap` is created on top of a user provided socket, do not send any data to the socket until all existing writes of the socket are done and ensure registered callbacks of those writes can be fired. PR-URL: #48969 Backport-PR-URL: #49016 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Paolo Insogna <[email protected]>
ruyadorno
added
backported-to-v18.x
and removed
needs-ci
mhdawson
pushed a commit
to mhdawson/io.js
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 15, 2023
Fixs two issues in `TLSWrap`, one of them is reported in nodejs#30896. 1. `TLSWrap` has exactly one `StreamListener`, however, that `StreamListener` can be replaced. We have not been rigorous enough here: if an active write has not been finished before the transition, the finish callback of it will be wrongly fired the successor `StreamListener`. 2. A `TLSWrap` does not allow more than one active write, as checked in the assertion about current_write in `TLSWrap::DoWrite()`. However, when users make use of an existing `tls.TLSSocket` to establish double TLS, by either tls.connect({socket: tlssock}) or tlsServer.emit('connection', tlssock) we have both of the user provided `tls.TLSSocket`, tlssock and a brand new created `TLSWrap` writing to the `TLSWrap` bound to tlssock, which easily violates the constranint because two writers have no idea of each other. The design of the fix is: when a `TLSWrap` is created on top of a user provided socket, do not send any data to the socket until all existing writes of the socket are done and ensure registered callbacks of those writes can be fired. PR-URL: nodejs#48969 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Paolo Insogna <[email protected]>
mhdawson
pushed a commit
to mhdawson/io.js
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 15, 2023
Fixs two issues in `TLSWrap`, one of them is reported in nodejs#30896. 1. `TLSWrap` has exactly one `StreamListener`, however, that `StreamListener` can be replaced. We have not been rigorous enough here: if an active write has not been finished before the transition, the finish callback of it will be wrongly fired the successor `StreamListener`. 2. A `TLSWrap` does not allow more than one active write, as checked in the assertion about current_write in `TLSWrap::DoWrite()`. However, when users make use of an existing `tls.TLSSocket` to establish double TLS, by either tls.connect({socket: tlssock}) or tlsServer.emit('connection', tlssock) we have both of the user provided `tls.TLSSocket`, tlssock and a brand new created `TLSWrap` writing to the `TLSWrap` bound to tlssock, which easily violates the constranint because two writers have no idea of each other. The design of the fix is: when a `TLSWrap` is created on top of a user provided socket, do not send any data to the socket until all existing writes of the socket are done and ensure registered callbacks of those writes can be fired. PR-URL: nodejs#48969 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Paolo Insogna <[email protected]>
Member
|
Backport to 18.x PR (second try) - #49183 |
RafaelGSS
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 15, 2023
Fixs two issues in `TLSWrap`, one of them is reported in #30896. 1. `TLSWrap` has exactly one `StreamListener`, however, that `StreamListener` can be replaced. We have not been rigorous enough here: if an active write has not been finished before the transition, the finish callback of it will be wrongly fired the successor `StreamListener`. 2. A `TLSWrap` does not allow more than one active write, as checked in the assertion about current_write in `TLSWrap::DoWrite()`. However, when users make use of an existing `tls.TLSSocket` to establish double TLS, by either tls.connect({socket: tlssock}) or tlsServer.emit('connection', tlssock) we have both of the user provided `tls.TLSSocket`, tlssock and a brand new created `TLSWrap` writing to the `TLSWrap` bound to tlssock, which easily violates the constranint because two writers have no idea of each other. The design of the fix is: when a `TLSWrap` is created on top of a user provided socket, do not send any data to the socket until all existing writes of the socket are done and ensure registered callbacks of those writes can be fired. PR-URL: #48969 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Paolo Insogna <[email protected]>
Merged
RafaelGSS
pushed a commit
to RafaelGSS/node
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 15, 2023
Fixs two issues in `TLSWrap`, one of them is reported in nodejs#30896. 1. `TLSWrap` has exactly one `StreamListener`, however, that `StreamListener` can be replaced. We have not been rigorous enough here: if an active write has not been finished before the transition, the finish callback of it will be wrongly fired the successor `StreamListener`. 2. A `TLSWrap` does not allow more than one active write, as checked in the assertion about current_write in `TLSWrap::DoWrite()`. However, when users make use of an existing `tls.TLSSocket` to establish double TLS, by either tls.connect({socket: tlssock}) or tlsServer.emit('connection', tlssock) we have both of the user provided `tls.TLSSocket`, tlssock and a brand new created `TLSWrap` writing to the `TLSWrap` bound to tlssock, which easily violates the constranint because two writers have no idea of each other. The design of the fix is: when a `TLSWrap` is created on top of a user provided socket, do not send any data to the socket until all existing writes of the socket are done and ensure registered callbacks of those writes can be fired. PR-URL: nodejs#48969 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Paolo Insogna <[email protected]>
mhdawson
pushed a commit
to mhdawson/io.js
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 15, 2023
Fixs two issues in `TLSWrap`, one of them is reported in nodejs#30896. 1. `TLSWrap` has exactly one `StreamListener`, however, that `StreamListener` can be replaced. We have not been rigorous enough here: if an active write has not been finished before the transition, the finish callback of it will be wrongly fired the successor `StreamListener`. 2. A `TLSWrap` does not allow more than one active write, as checked in the assertion about current_write in `TLSWrap::DoWrite()`. However, when users make use of an existing `tls.TLSSocket` to establish double TLS, by either tls.connect({socket: tlssock}) or tlsServer.emit('connection', tlssock) we have both of the user provided `tls.TLSSocket`, tlssock and a brand new created `TLSWrap` writing to the `TLSWrap` bound to tlssock, which easily violates the constranint because two writers have no idea of each other. The design of the fix is: when a `TLSWrap` is created on top of a user provided socket, do not send any data to the socket until all existing writes of the socket are done and ensure registered callbacks of those writes can be fired. PR-URL: nodejs#48969 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Paolo Insogna <[email protected]>
rluvaton
pushed a commit
to rluvaton/node
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 15, 2023
Fixs two issues in `TLSWrap`, one of them is reported in nodejs#30896. 1. `TLSWrap` has exactly one `StreamListener`, however, that `StreamListener` can be replaced. We have not been rigorous enough here: if an active write has not been finished before the transition, the finish callback of it will be wrongly fired the successor `StreamListener`. 2. A `TLSWrap` does not allow more than one active write, as checked in the assertion about current_write in `TLSWrap::DoWrite()`. However, when users make use of an existing `tls.TLSSocket` to establish double TLS, by either tls.connect({socket: tlssock}) or tlsServer.emit('connection', tlssock) we have both of the user provided `tls.TLSSocket`, tlssock and a brand new created `TLSWrap` writing to the `TLSWrap` bound to tlssock, which easily violates the constranint because two writers have no idea of each other. The design of the fix is: when a `TLSWrap` is created on top of a user provided socket, do not send any data to the socket until all existing writes of the socket are done and ensure registered callbacks of those writes can be fired. PR-URL: nodejs#48969 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Paolo Insogna <[email protected]>
RafaelGSS
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 17, 2023
Fixs two issues in `TLSWrap`, one of them is reported in #30896. 1. `TLSWrap` has exactly one `StreamListener`, however, that `StreamListener` can be replaced. We have not been rigorous enough here: if an active write has not been finished before the transition, the finish callback of it will be wrongly fired the successor `StreamListener`. 2. A `TLSWrap` does not allow more than one active write, as checked in the assertion about current_write in `TLSWrap::DoWrite()`. However, when users make use of an existing `tls.TLSSocket` to establish double TLS, by either tls.connect({socket: tlssock}) or tlsServer.emit('connection', tlssock) we have both of the user provided `tls.TLSSocket`, tlssock and a brand new created `TLSWrap` writing to the `TLSWrap` bound to tlssock, which easily violates the constranint because two writers have no idea of each other. The design of the fix is: when a `TLSWrap` is created on top of a user provided socket, do not send any data to the socket until all existing writes of the socket are done and ensure registered callbacks of those writes can be fired. PR-URL: #48969 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Paolo Insogna <[email protected]>
ruyadorno
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 17, 2023
Fixs two issues in `TLSWrap`, one of them is reported in #30896. 1. `TLSWrap` has exactly one `StreamListener`, however, that `StreamListener` can be replaced. We have not been rigorous enough here: if an active write has not been finished before the transition, the finish callback of it will be wrongly fired the successor `StreamListener`. 2. A `TLSWrap` does not allow more than one active write, as checked in the assertion about current_write in `TLSWrap::DoWrite()`. However, when users make use of an existing `tls.TLSSocket` to establish double TLS, by either tls.connect({socket: tlssock}) or tlsServer.emit('connection', tlssock) we have both of the user provided `tls.TLSSocket`, tlssock and a brand new created `TLSWrap` writing to the `TLSWrap` bound to tlssock, which easily violates the constranint because two writers have no idea of each other. The design of the fix is: when a `TLSWrap` is created on top of a user provided socket, do not send any data to the socket until all existing writes of the socket are done and ensure registered callbacks of those writes can be fired. PR-URL: #48969 Backport-PR-URL: #49183 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Paolo Insogna <[email protected]>
Merged
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
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.
A replacement of #48796
Fix a 3y long bug #30896