Reject TTL messages when not enabled, strip TTL header from sourcing/mirroring #6298
Conversation
This file contains 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
Signed-off-by: Neil Twigg <[email protected]>
… that when checking for next expiry Signed-off-by: Neil Twigg <[email protected]>
…mirroring Signed-off-by: Neil Twigg <[email protected]>
derekcollison
requested changes
Dec 23, 2024
| @@ -2418,6 +2418,12 @@ func (mset *stream) processInboundMirrorMsg(m *inMsg) bool { | |||
| return false | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| // If the TTL header is set, remove it. | |||
| hdr := m.hdr | |||
| if len(hdr) > 0 { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think instead of removing we flag that the messages is sourced to this function and if so we ignore this plus a bunch of others..
| @@ -3447,8 +3453,10 @@ func (mset *stream) processInboundSourceMsg(si *sourceInfo, m *inMsg) bool { | |||
| hdr, msg := m.hdr, m.msg | |||
|
|
|||
| // If we are daisy chained here make sure to remove the original one. | |||
| // If the TTL header is set, remove it. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's rework this logic to not remove but ignore.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this wise? If we have to rebuild the mirroring/sourcing stream, how do we know whether or not to recover the TTLs? Do we just never recover the TTLs if there are mirrors/sources present?
| @@ -4780,6 +4789,19 @@ func (mset *stream) processJetStreamMsg(subject, reply string, hdr, msg []byte, | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| // TTL'd messages are rejected entirely if TTLs are not enabled on the stream. | |||
| if ttl, _ := getMessageTTL(hdr); ttl != 0 && !mset.cfg.AllowMsgTTL { | |||
| mset.mu.Unlock() | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can do this before proposing to the NRG so no need to bump CLFS etc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was specific to the downstream stream not having per msg ttls enabled correct?
neilalexander
force-pushed
the
neil/ttl
branch
from
4d4187b to
6ea9fe0
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Now that sourcing/mirroring strips the TTL header, it is safe to reject messages with the
Nats-TTLheader ifAllowMsgTTLis not set on the stream.Sourcing/mirroring tests are both clustered and non-clustered as there are different codepaths for sourcing/mirroring when clustered.
Signed-off-by: Neil Twigg [email protected]