fix(iroh-dns-server): Fixes for packet expiry #3297
Merged
Conversation
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
|
Documentation for this PR has been generated and is available at: https://n0-computer.github.io/iroh/pr/3297/docs/iroh/ Last updated: 2025-05-09T11:38:38Z |
matheus23
approved these changes
May 9, 2025
matheus23
reviewed
May 9, 2025
Comment on lines
+195
to
196
| let expired = Timestamp::now() - expiry_us; | ||
| if packet.timestamp() < expired { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a way of essentially having this say now().duration_since(packet.timestamp()) > expiry_duration instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
https://docs.rs/pkarr/latest/pkarr/struct.Timestamp.html doesn't provide this it seems.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
Based on #3295
I noticed in the debug logs of our staging server that some entries in the expiry table were never deleted, and thus they were processed again and again on each expiry tick.
This PR has the following changes:
existing.timestamp(), because that's the entry we want to remove, not the (not-yet-existing) entry for the timestamp of the new packet.Breaking Changes
Notes & open questions
We need tests around expiry. This should've been caught earlier. There's currently only a single test around eviction, added in the PR that added eviction (#2997). But that test only tests that expiry works at all. There's no test currently that verifies if entries in the expiry table are removed when a packet is upserted, which is the test that would fail without this PR.
Change checklist