bug: collision in v12 room IDs when creating them fast #2424
Labels
No labels
Abandoned
Blocked
Bug
Changelog
Added
Changelog
Missing
Changelog
None
Cherry-picking
Database
Dependencies
Dependencies/Renovate
Difficulty
Easy
Difficulty
Hard
Difficulty
Medium
Documentation
Enhancement
Good first issue
Help wanted
Inherited
Matrix/Administration
Matrix/Appservices
Matrix/Auth
Matrix/Client
Matrix/Core
Matrix/E2EE
Matrix/Federation
Matrix/Hydra
Matrix/MSC
Matrix/Media
Matrix/T&S
Merge
Merge/Manual
Merge/Squash
Meta
Meta/CI
Meta/Packaging
Priority
Blocking
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Security
Status
Confirmed
Status
Duplicate
Status
Invalid
Status
Needs Investigation
Support
bob the builder
No milestone
No assignees
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set
Reference
continuwuation/continuwuity#2424
Loading…
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
What is the bug?
I’m running a mautrix bridge with a continuwuity server and I noticed that several chats from the remote network ended up in the same matrix room.
From the server logs what happened is that the bridge bot created the 2 rooms at the same instant (up to the milliseconds), so they got the same ID which is minted from the initial event (which contains only the timestamp and the bot account name). And nothing in Continuwuity synchronizes the two create paths, which end up with the same room ID.
I guess the bridge could just create the events slower to fix this. But, if my statement above is correct, this is arguably a bug in Continuwuity.
Steps to reproduce
not easy to reproduce. I suppose that by using a fast bot that create rooms this can be observed. Although the initial room creation of the "mautrix-meta" bridge hit that bug a couple of times so this is probably reproducible with that too.
Server name and version
a personnal server, running v26.9.1
046074bAdditional context
No response
Thanks @Jade for the fix!
@mkende wrote in #2424 (comment):
Give thanks to @eleboucher too, he fixed it, Jade just reviewed/merged :)
Right, sorry. Thanks @eleboucher of course :)