-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.6k
fix: Backport limit spin loop in TLSActor #29922 #31975
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: Backport limit spin loop in TLSActor #29922 #31975
Conversation
Backport of fix from 2.8 release line.
@@ -480,7 +492,6 @@ import akka.util.ByteString | |||
pump() | |||
} | |||
|
|||
// FIXME: what happens if this actor dies unexpectedly? |
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.
Accidental cherry pick removal but doesn't really matter.
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.
LGTM
Oh, it seems that branch is still configured with Travis which won't run and GH Actions didn't kick in either. |
Tested locally, both akka test suite and akka-http tests show no TLS spec related surprises there. |
s"Stuck in unwrap loop, bailing out, last handshake status [$lastHandshakeStatus], " + | ||
s"remaining=${transportInBuffer.remaining}, out=${userOutBuffer.position()}, " + | ||
"(https://github.com/akka/akka/issues/29922)") | ||
} | ||
transportInChoppingBlock.putBack(transportInBuffer) | ||
case FINISHED => | ||
flushToUser() |
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.
Comparing main and 2.6 I see that there is another change that might be related but I don't know. https://github.com/akka/akka/pull/31433/files
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.
Yeah, wasn't sure that was related, so opted to not backport that when I was looking at it. Not sure that is the right decision though, that flush-change is also pretty minimal.
I'm pretty sure we used GitHub Actions for 2.6. It had an old branch protection wildcard, which I have changed so hopefully this will run CI now. |
close-open to trigger CI |
Meh, old versions of github actions and the security settings for those blocking CI from running now. |
I'll allow those temporarily. |
Refs #29922
Backport of fix from 2.8 release line.