On Dec 28, 2007, at 8:36 PM, robert at freenetproject.org wrote:
> Author: robert
> Date: 2007-12-29 02:36:16 +0000 (Sat, 29 Dec 2007)
> New Revision: 16837
>
> Modified:
> trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/FNPPacketMangler.java
> Log:
> opps, no... 'changeIP' is while connected, 'auth' is while
> disconnected (partially reverts r16836)
>
>
> Modified: trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/FNPPacketMangler.java
> ===================================================================
> --- trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/FNPPacketMangler.java 2007-12-29
> 02:12:19 UTC (rev 16836)
> +++ trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/FNPPacketMangler.java 2007-12-29
> 02:36:16 UTC (rev 16837)
> @@ -237,7 +237,7 @@
> for(int i=0;i<peers.length;i++) {
> pn = peers[i];
> if(pn == opn) continue;
> - if(pn.isConnected()) continue;
> + if(!pn.isConnected()) continue;
> if(tryProcess(buf, offset, length,
> pn.getCurrentKeyTracker(),
> now)) {
> // IP address change
> pn.changedIP(peer);
> @@ -261,6 +261,7 @@
> for(int i=0;i<peers.length;i++) {
> pn = peers[i];
> if(pn == opn) continue;
> + if(pn.isConnected()) continue;
> if(tryProcessAuth(buf, offset, length, pn,
> peer,false, now))
> return;
> }
> }
The isConnected() check synchronizes to the peernode, do you think
that outweighs trying to decrypt the a packet (or in one case 3
different ways)?
--
Robert Hailey
