Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Aug 2, 2021. It is now read-only.
Closed
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
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
125 changes: 74 additions & 51 deletions swarm/pss/pss.go
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -886,68 +886,91 @@ func (p *Pss) send(to []byte, topic Topic, msg []byte, asymmetric bool, key []by
return nil
}

// tries to send a message, returns true if successful
func (p *Pss) trySend(sp *network.Peer, msg *PssMsg) bool {
var isPssEnabled bool
info := sp.Info()
for _, capability := range info.Caps {
if capability == p.capstring {
isPssEnabled = true
break
}
}
if !isPssEnabled {
log.Trace("peer doesn't have matching pss capabilities, skipping", "peer", info.Name, "caps", info.Caps)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just occurred to me this should likely be a log.Error. Running swarm with Pss used to be optional, but it is no longer.

return false
}

// get the protocol peer from the forwarding peer cache
p.fwdPoolMu.RLock()
pp := p.fwdPool[sp.Info().ID]
p.fwdPoolMu.RUnlock()

err := pp.Send(context.TODO(), msg)
if err != nil {
metrics.GetOrRegisterCounter("pss.pp.send.error", nil).Inc(1)
log.Error(err.Error())
}

return err == nil
}

// Forwards a pss message to the peer(s) closest to the to recipient address in the PssMsg struct
// The recipient address can be of any length, and the byte slice will be matched to the MSB slice
// of the peer address of the equivalent length.
// If the recipient address (or partial address) is within the neighbourhood depth of the forwarding
// node, then it will be forwarded to all the nearest neighbours of the forwarding node. In case of
// partial address, it should be forwarded to all the peers matching the partial address, if there
// are any; otherwise only to one peer, closest to the recipient address. In any case, if the message
// forwarding fails, the node should try to forward it to the next best peer, until the message is
// successfully forwarded to at least one peer.
func (p *Pss) forward(msg *PssMsg) error {
metrics.GetOrRegisterCounter("pss.forward", nil).Inc(1)

sent := 0 // number of successful sends
var isDstInProxBin bool // is destination address within the neighbourhood depth of the forwarding peer
to := make([]byte, addressLength)
copy(to[:len(msg.To)], msg.To)
neighbourhoodDepth := p.Kademlia.NeighbourhoodDepth()

// luminosity is the opposite of darkness. the more bytes are removed from the address, the higher is darkness,
// but the luminosity is less. here luminosity equals the number of bits present in the destination address.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

number of bits defined in the destination address

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

i think given is best

luminousRadius := len(msg.To) * 8
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In that case, I think the correct term would be luminosityRadius

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please change this name as noted @gluk256 because it's not grammatically correct.

if luminousRadius >= neighbourhoodDepth {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this is quite convoluted esp without comments.

i think this is so much simpler:

pof := pot.DefaultPof(neighbourhoodDepth) // pof function matching upto neighbourhoodDepth bits
depth, full := pof(to, p.BaseAddr(), 0)
// if full match, then depth == neighbourhoodDepth, we broadcast to all neighbours.
if !full  {
   // if not full match, we broadcast upto luminousityRadius
   // if to is not partial address, luminosityRadius is 256 so po<depth will be true after the  first
   depth =  luminosityRadius
}  
p.Kademlia.EachConn(to, addressLength*8, func(sp *network.Peer, po int, _ bool) bool {
    if po < depth && sent > 0 {
        return false
    }
    if p.trySend(sp, msg) {
        sent++
    }
}

pof := pot.DefaultPof(neighbourhoodDepth)
_, isDstInProxBin = pof(to, p.BaseAddr(), 0)
}

// send with kademlia
// find the closest peer to the recipient and attempt to send
sent := 0
p.Kademlia.EachConn(to, 256, func(sp *network.Peer, po int, isproxbin bool) bool {
info := sp.Info()

// check if the peer is running pss
var ispss bool
for _, cap := range info.Caps {
if cap == p.capstring {
ispss = true
break
if isDstInProxBin {
// forward to all the nearest neighbours of the forwarding node
p.Kademlia.EachConn(nil, addressLength*8, func(sp *network.Peer, po int, _ bool) bool {
isPeerInProxBin := (po >= neighbourhoodDepth)
if isPeerInProxBin {
if p.trySend(sp, msg) {
sent++
}
}
}
if !ispss {
log.Trace("peer doesn't have matching pss capabilities, skipping", "peer", info.Name, "caps", info.Caps)
return true
}

// get the protocol peer from the forwarding peer cache
sendMsg := fmt.Sprintf("MSG TO %x FROM %x VIA %x", to, p.BaseAddr(), sp.Address())
p.fwdPoolMu.RLock()
pp := p.fwdPool[sp.Info().ID]
p.fwdPoolMu.RUnlock()
mustContinue := isPeerInProxBin
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

no need

return mustContinue
Copy link
Contributor

@nolash nolash Dec 6, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I understand your point about the comment.

But "explaining through varnames" is rather unusual in our code.

We tend to add a comment instead (that is, when we remember to). I think it makes sense to try to maintain a minimum of style coordination through our code so that the reader doesn't have to interpret that as well as the logic.

So I think:

// if we are in proxbin continue forwarding
return isPeerInProxBin

Is better.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

see my algo, WDYT?

})
}

// attempt to send the message
err := pp.Send(context.TODO(), msg)
if err != nil {
metrics.GetOrRegisterCounter("pss.pp.send.error", nil).Inc(1)
log.Error(err.Error())
return true
}
sent++
log.Trace(fmt.Sprintf("%v: successfully forwarded", sendMsg))

// continue forwarding if:
// - if the peer is end recipient but the full address has not been disclosed
// - if the peer address matches the partial address fully
// - if the peer is in proxbin
if len(msg.To) < addressLength && bytes.Equal(msg.To, sp.Address()[:len(msg.To)]) {
log.Trace(fmt.Sprintf("Pss keep forwarding: Partial address + full partial match"))
return true
} else if isproxbin {
log.Trace(fmt.Sprintf("%x is in proxbin, keep forwarding", common.ToHex(sp.Address())))
return true
}
// at this point we stop forwarding, and the state is as follows:
// - the peer is end recipient and we have full address
// - we are not in proxbin (directed routing)
// - partial addresses don't fully match
return false
})
if !isDstInProxBin || sent == 0 {
// in case of partial address, msg should be forwarded to all the peers matching the partial
// address, if there are any; otherwise only to one peer, closest to the recipient address.
// in any case, msg must be sent to at least one peer.
p.Kademlia.EachConn(to, addressLength*8, func(sp *network.Peer, po int, _ bool) bool {
isAddrMatch := (po >= luminousRadius)
if isAddrMatch || sent == 0 {
if p.trySend(sp, msg) {
sent++
}
}
mustContinue := (isAddrMatch || sent == 0)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Put this before the if line 959 and replace in if-condition please, please.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this is not the same, because sent++ might be incremented

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You're right. So maybe:

if !p.trySend(sp, msg) {
    return true
}
[...]
return isAddrMatch

instead?

return mustContinue
})
}

// if we failed to send to anyone, re-insert message in the send-queue
if sent == 0 {
log.Debug("unable to forward to any peers")
if err := p.enqueue(msg); err != nil {
Expand Down