Correctly connect parties with socket. #218
Closed
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
facebook-github-bot
added
CLA Signed
Contributor
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D36908724 |
adshastri
pushed a commit
to adshastri/fbpcf
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 6, 2022
Summary: Pull Request resolved: facebookresearch#218 Our existing arrangement of party info (ip address and port number) is buggy as there will be a conflict with more than 2 parties. This diff is to address this issue. Our current code works fine with 2 party setting. But it will break with more than 2 parties. Example scenario: when party 0 connects with party 1, with current code, he will pull out the partyinfo of party 0, and add one to the port number. Party 1 will add 1 to a port number on his side. When party 1 connects with party 2, with current code, he will pull out the same partyinfo of party 0, and add on to the port number. Party 2 will add 1 to a port number on his side. Since multiple connections will be established between each pair of parties, this will definitely create a conflict. For example, party 0 will add 1 to the same port number twice while others only do that once. Our solution: 1. Each party keep a map of partyinfo, served as "info needed to connected to party i". 2. during each connection attemption, each party will use the peer's id to look up the partyinfo map. If this party is going to play the role of server, the ip address is useless. The corresponding ip address and port number can be used to establish connection. Differential Revision: D36908724 fbshipit-source-id: 60c96c97f2cc1c77710ad55ebda63c179abd14ca
Summary: Pull Request resolved: facebookresearch#218 Our existing arrangement of party info (ip address and port number) is buggy as there will be a conflict with more than 2 parties. This diff is to address this issue. Our current code works fine with 2 party setting. But it will break with more than 2 parties. Example scenario: when party 0 connects with party 1, with current code, he will pull out the partyinfo of party 0, and add one to the port number. Party 1 will add 1 to a port number on his side. When party 1 connects with party 2, with current code, he will pull out the same partyinfo of party 0, and add on to the port number. Party 2 will add 1 to a port number on his side. Since multiple connections will be established between each pair of parties, this will definitely create a conflict. For example, party 0 will add 1 to the same port number twice while others only do that once. Our solution: 1. Each party keep a map of partyinfo, served as "info needed to connected to party i". 2. during each connection attemption, each party will use the peer's id to look up the partyinfo map. If this party is going to play the role of server, the ip address is useless. The corresponding ip address and port number can be used to establish connection. Differential Revision: D36908724 fbshipit-source-id: 7821ade91cfb8c61be76cf79547ef8a4fdc8c476
RuiyuZhu
force-pushed
the
export-D36908724
branch
from
12e28f1 to
ade2a06
Compare
Contributor
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D36908724 |
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.
Summary:
Our existing arrangement of party info (ip address and port number) is buggy as there will be a conflict with more than 2 parties. This diff is to address this issue.
Our current code works fine with 2 party setting. But it will break with more than 2 parties.
Example scenario:
when party 0 connects with party 1, with current code, he will pull out the partyinfo of party 0, and add one to the port number. Party 1 will add 1 to a port number on his side.
When party 1 connects with party 2, with current code, he will pull out the same partyinfo of party 0, and add on to the port number. Party 2 will add 1 to a port number on his side.
Since multiple connections will be established between each pair of parties, this will definitely create a conflict. For example, party 0 will add 1 to the same port number twice while others only do that once.
Our solution:
Differential Revision: D36908724