tracker mangles peer ports #19
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
feross
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 19, 2014
The client was converting the binary (compact) response to a utf8 string which would modify the data in some cases. Keeping it as a buffer the whole time solves the issue. Fixes #19.
Member
|
Thanks for the bug report. The client was converting the binary (compact) response to a utf8 string which would modify the data in some cases. Keeping it as a buffer the whole time solves the issue. Fixed and published as 0.7.2. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The tracker seems to mangle port information when returning peers in compact (binary) model. This PR illustrates the problem via a failing test:
Two peers connect to the tracker: one on port 6881 and another on 6882. When receiving a response from the tracker the second peer expects to find the first one, but instead discovers an erroneous peer.
Consequently, when returning peers in non-compact (dictionary) model, the tracker seems to mangle IP information, but that's a separate issue.