fix(transport): clamp FibonacciBackoff state at max to avoid u64 overflow - #770
Open
tradatious wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
fix(transport): clamp FibonacciBackoff state at max to avoid u64 overflow#770tradatious wants to merge 1 commit into
tradatious wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
…flow `next_delay()` capped only the returned delay; the internal state kept growing as a raw Fibonacci sequence, which overflows u64 at call 93 (fib(94)). A reconnect loop with a large `max_reconnect_attempts` or `reconnect_forever` reaches that during a long outage. With the 30 s `max` both call sites use, about 45 minutes of continuous outage. In debug builds `next_delay()` would panic with `attempt to add with overflow`, and in release the addition would wrap and the delays would become nonsense.
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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The fix for PR #763 exposed an issue with
next_delay()that I didn't notice at the time.