Don't double-count buffer consumption in close length checks - #1768
Merged
Conversation
djc
approved these changes
Feb 25, 2024
PacketBuilder::max_size previously subtracted out the start index and header size of the packet, and therefore described the admissible size of the packet's frames. However, most of our logic operates in terms of absolute buffer positions instead. This was confusing, and led to erroneous double-counting of space use in close packets.
Ralith
force-pushed
the
cleanup-max-size
branch
from
February 25, 2024 08:00
0de6018 to
392bbbe
Compare
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
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
PacketBuilder::max_size previously subtracted out the start index and header size of the packet, and therefore described the admissible size of the packet's frames. However, most of our logic operates in terms of absolute buffer positions instead. This was confusing, and led to erroneous double-counting of space use in close packets.
Discovered while drafting #1767.