Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Ensure network connection is closed when handshake with peer fails #1476

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 19, 2018
Merged

Ensure network connection is closed when handshake with peer fails #1476

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
af7c49d
Ensure network connection is closed when handshake with peer fails
pipermerriam Nov 18, 2018
3149871
clean up remaining unclosed transport warnings
pipermerriam Nov 18, 2018
12a932c
Add comment
pipermerriam Nov 19, 2018
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
12 changes: 10 additions & 2 deletions p2p/auth.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -57,8 +57,16 @@ async def handshake(
use_eip8 = False
initiator = HandshakeInitiator(remote, privkey, use_eip8, token)
reader, writer = await initiator.connect()
aes_secret, mac_secret, egress_mac, ingress_mac = await _handshake(
initiator, reader, writer, token)
try:
aes_secret, mac_secret, egress_mac, ingress_mac = await _handshake(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wonder if this could be rewritten using an asynccontextmanager so that becomes:

async with initiator.connect() as reader, writer:
    aes_secret, mac_secret, egress_mac, ingress_mac = await _handshake(
            initiator, reader, writer, token)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In theory yes. I've thought about this a bit but I'm unsure enough about it that I'd like to punt, with the compromise being adding a larger comment to the section explaining why the solution isn't ideal.

initiator, reader, writer, token)
except Exception:
if not reader.at_eof():
reader.feed_eof()
writer.close()
await asyncio.sleep(0)
raise

return aes_secret, mac_secret, egress_mac, ingress_mac, reader, writer


Expand Down
18 changes: 13 additions & 5 deletions p2p/peer.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -127,8 +127,17 @@ async def handshake(remote: Node, factory: 'BasePeerFactory') -> 'BasePeer':
connection=connection,
inbound=False,
)
await peer.do_p2p_handshake()
await peer.do_sub_proto_handshake()

try:
await peer.do_p2p_handshake()
await peer.do_sub_proto_handshake()
except Exception:
if not reader.at_eof():
reader.feed_eof()
writer.close()
await asyncio.sleep(0)
raise

return peer


Expand Down Expand Up @@ -342,9 +351,8 @@ def close(self) -> None:

If the streams have already been closed, do nothing.
"""
if self.reader.at_eof():
return
self.reader.feed_eof()
if not self.reader.at_eof():
self.reader.feed_eof()
self.writer.close()

@property
Expand Down