Hello Tim,

Thanks a lot for the patch. I will try it out and let you know the results.

BR.,
Emerson

Em qui, 3 de jan de 2019 às 21:18, Tim Düsterhus <t...@bastelstu.be>
escreveu:

> Emerson,
>
> Am 03.01.19 um 21:58 schrieb Emerson Gomes:
> > However, the underflow scenario only seem to be possible if the peers are
> > sending relative values, rather than absolute ones.
>
> I don't believe so. My hypothetical timeline was created with absolute
> values in mind.
>
> > Apparently both cases (absolut and offset values) exist.
> > I am looking at src/peers.c to understand how the peer protocol works and
> > maybe create the patch you proposed (do not decrement counter if already
> 0).
>
> I attached a patch which I believe fixes the issue (checking for 0 when
> decrementing, not touching the peers).
>
> > However it seems that a real fix would require some big changes on the
> > protocol itself.
>
> Yes I agree.
>
> > One potencial implementation I could imagine, would be to, rather than
> > broadcasting absolute values or offsets, each neighbor peer could report
> > the amount of connection it has locally only, and it would be up to the
> > local node to resolve the actual value by adding up the different values
> > received from all neighbors.
>
> Yes, that probably would be the most reliable implementation. It takes
> up more memory and processing power, though.
>
> > Not even sure if my understading is correct, but it's task currently out
> of
> > my reach.
> > Should I do a bug report somewhere? :)
> >
>
> I suspect that the developers will notice this thread. A proper issue
> tracker is a wish of mine as well
> (https://www.mail-archive.com/haproxy@formilux.org/msg32239.html).
>
> Best regards
> Tim Düsterhus
>

Reply via email to