On Sunday 21 November 2010 22:47:15 Martin Nyhus wrote:
> On Friday 19. November 2010 22:04:25 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Ok. However IMHO packet numbers need to be per-key, and it is possible for
> > two keys to temporarily be live at once (at least it should be,
> > implementing it that way in old FNP fixed some largish issues).
>
> Good point. 72768a0 is a quick fix, but it won't work if a tracker we've used
> before becomes the current tracker again.
>
> For example, if tracker A is the previous tracker, could it happen that A is
> promoted to the current tracker? It looks like it could happen in
> maybeSwapTrackers(), but both callers replace previousTracker first so it
> should be fine right?
>
Well, it's possible that the previous tracker could be in use for quite some
time. And in cases of extreme bad luck really bad things could happen with
overlapping resets with the current code. IMHO it is essential that packet
numbers be per-SessionKey given that encryption is now entirely dependant on
packet numbers.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20101122/8973218e/attachment.pgp>
