-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 270
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
fix: panic in pop_frame() #657
Conversation
aftersnow
commented
Jan 6, 2023
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.
Thanks so so much for sending a PR! It's always appreciated when people try to help fix the problems they find :)
d312edf
to
d32b804
Compare
@seanmonstar Hi, have changed the PR, could you review the PR again please? |
Sorry for forgetting about this. I think fixing this issue is a really nice improvement. I wonder if adding a unit test making sure we never regress this would be worth doing. I suppose the instance is a case where perhaps the connection window size is larger than the accumulative stream windows, right? What do you think? Does it look manageable to add a test case? Have you, by chance, tried out this patch in your application to see it fixed the panics? |
We met the panic in our production environment, so handle this panic condition before panic. The stack backtrace: 0: rust_begin_unwind at /rustc/59eed8a2aac0230a8b53e89d4e99d55912ba6b35/library/std/src/panicking.rs:517:5 1: core::panicking::panic_fmt at /rustc/59eed8a2aac0230a8b53e89d4e99d55912ba6b35/library/core/src/panicking.rs:101:14 2: core::panicking::panic at /rustc/59eed8a2aac0230a8b53e89d4e99d55912ba6b35/library/core/src/panicking.rs:50:5 3: h2::proto::streams::flow_control::FlowControl::send_data at /build/vendor/h2/src/proto/streams/flow_control.rs:176:9 4: h2::proto::streams::prioritize::Prioritize::pop_frame::{{closure}} at /build/vendor/h2/src/proto/streams/prioritize.rs:737:33 5: tracing::span::Span::in_scope at /build/vendor/tracing/src/span.rs:982:9 6: h2::proto::streams::prioritize::Prioritize::pop_frame at /build/vendor/h2/src/proto/streams/prioritize.rs:736:29 7: h2::proto::streams::prioritize::Prioritize::poll_complete at /build/vendor/h2/src/proto/streams/prioritize.rs:497:19 8: h2::proto::streams::send::Send::poll_complete at /build/vendor/h2/src/proto/streams/send.rs:297:9 9: h2::proto::streams::streams::Inner::poll_complete at /build/vendor/h2/src/proto/streams/streams.rs:850:16 10: h2::proto::streams::streams::Streams<B,P>::poll_complete at /build/vendor/h2/src/proto/streams/streams.rs:180:9 11: h2::proto::connection::Connection<T,P,B>::poll at /build/vendor/h2/src/proto/connection.rs:253:36 12: <h2::client::Connection<T,B> as core::future::future::Future>::poll 13: ...
d32b804
to
fc63ae9
Compare
OK, I fixed the test error: If the frame length equals the windows size, it should not be pushed front. Now all tests passed. (Maybe the current UTs are enough?)
Yes, I found the error in our production environment (see the commit message). But I am not familiar with the http protocol, so I cannot explain it deeply. Do you have any suggestions for me?
It would be better to add a test case, but I don't know how to reproduce the case...
Yes, the initial commit of this PR has been tested in our production environment, and fixed the panic. |
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.
Thanks for keeping up with this, LGTM!