-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.3k
[common] Fix integer overflow error in JitteredBackOffStrategy found by fuzzer. #10417
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.
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
mattklein123
merged 3 commits into
envoyproxy:master
from
antoniovicente:backoff_overflow
Mar 18, 2020
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
ea7046f
Fix integer overflow error in JitteredBackOffStrategy found by fuzzer.
antoniovicente cdc9424
fix test failures caused by changes to the exact thresholds used duri…
antoniovicente b3769fb
Remove StrictMock left over from debugging the test.
antoniovicente File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
qq: why does this test need to change as well as the HDS test? It seems like this fix shouldn't have any behavior change in the normal case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The issue is related to this part of the original implementation that traces back to the first revision of Envoy in github:
uint32_t multiplier = (1 << current_retry_) - 1;
This is not increasing backoff by a factor of 2 each time. I think that what was really intended was:
uint32_t multiplier = 1 << (current_retry_ - 1);
Current backoff sequence: 1, 3, 7, 15...
New backoff sequence: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16...
The biggest difference is the jump from increase from 1 to 3x instead of 2x at the first step. Replicating the current behavior is possible, but the code would be slightly more complicated.
Some discussion about it here:
#3791 (comment)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah OK got it, makes sense, thanks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Of course, thanks for digging deeper on unexplained code changes.