-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
tls: fix convertALPNProtocols accepting ArrayBufferViews #43211
Merged
LiviaMedeiros
merged 1 commit into
nodejs:master
from
LiviaMedeiros:tls-fix-convert-alpn-protocols
May 29, 2022
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is
isUint8Array()
faster thanisArrayBufferView()
? If not we can remove it as it would be handled by theisArrayBufferView()
check below.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The question here is, is
Buffer.from(buffer)
faster or better thanBuffer.from(arrayBuffer, byteOffset, length)
? HavingBuffer
orUint8Array
here is expected in most cases, otherwise we would got bugreports for this.I don't really know but my guess is "yes, it should be faster" because
Buffer
tends to use shared pools, and by doingbuffer.slice()
we would copy the whole pool.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should keep it as is when
protocols
is aBuffer
but when it is anUint8Array
I'm not sure. AFAIK there is no pool forUint8Array
s.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Anyway it is not very important, it would only slightly improve readability by removing the OR condition. Feel free to ignore.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, tested it and
Shows 8192 😕
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The one above uses
Uint8Array
directly rather thanArrayBuffer
:)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh right, sorry.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, it makes sense.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually, it was the right direction, applicable to the next branch. I forgot that
TypedArray.prototype.slice().buffer
, unlikeBuffer
's version, does exactly what's needed there. Calling.buffer.slice()
without arguments is in fact a huge mistake.Unfortunately,
DataView
is not aTypedArray
and supporting it requires slightly different approach.Synthetic microbenchmarking shows ~50% speedup for
TypedArray
way overDataView
, and ~700% forBuffer|Uint8Array
way overDataView
for me.If readability suffered too much from that, last
else if (isArrayBufferView)
branch can be removed. Otherwise it seems to be the most correct workaround (at least untilBuffer.from(anyArrayBufferView)
is somehow supported 😄).