Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Largest Reference algorithm can produce invalid values (#2112)

Bence Béky <notifications@github.com> Fri, 21 December 2018 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4063E124BF6 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 07:17:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.086
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.065, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hWzKdtFH1dqi for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 07:17:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A9DB124B0C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 07:17:44 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 07:17:43 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1545405463; bh=hhKgVwU3C0TgQ/O4L2/w/RS6w9FO0UneXQMdRapLQzQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=HXK5OOsIgAuPAsaKJeLaVR80R0LC6V1alQ0mKjAGbVhi47cQMHLxKZpJlyHP9BGGL NJIXpR0Av5rcvmV+J6cy5kmDCPTyhsXBzwkNoKfxRRt9FSPNWvdLKoyXdpKpNi63+k XkTG9BkYBjjTNJ27wzNCIeYM5n/U/NOi0fP+IdzQ=
From: Bence Béky <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abd3909c43abb972c45a56820a055f8a84b88fb32292cf000000011834c61792a169ce17393bf8@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2112/449414630@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2112@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2112@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Largest Reference algorithm can produce invalid values (#2112)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c1d041742d59_65293fc2770d45c0437425"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: bencebeky
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/IG6q3Ae6MExnYzbWcS9qACbQvfE>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 15:17:46 -0000

I was able to convince myself that the current algorithm cannot produce invalid
values.  Here's my reasoning:

```python

# Because of the way Largest Reference is encoded.
assert(0 < LargestReference)
assert(LargestReference <= 2 * MaxEntries)
# A decoder should signal an error if the input is out of this range.

if LargestReference > 0:
  LargestReference -= 1

  assert(0 <= LargestReference)
  assert(LargestReference < 2 * MaxEntries)

  CurrentWrapped = TotalNumberOfInserts mod (2 * MaxEntries)

  assert(0 <= CurrentWrapped)
  assert(CurrentWrapped < 2 * MaxEntries)

  if CurrentWrapped >= LargestReference + MaxEntries:
    # Largest Reference wrapped around 1 extra time
    assert(CurrentWrapped >= LargestReference + MaxEntries)
    LargestReference += 2 * MaxEntries
    assert(CurrentWrapped >= LargestReference - MaxEntries)

    # Because CurrentWrapped < 2 * MaxEntries
    # and LargestReferencee >= 2 * MaxEntries.
    assert(CurrentWrapped - MaxEntries < LargestReference)

  else if CurrentWrapped + MaxEntries < LargestReference
    # Decoder wrapped around 1 extra time
    assert(CurrentWrapped + MaxEntries < LargestReference)
    CurrentWrapped += 2 * MaxEntries
    assert(CurrentWrapped - MaxEntries < LargestReference)

    # Because LargestReference < 2 * MaxEntries
    # and CurrentWrapped >= 2 * MaxEntries.
    assert(LargestReference <= CurrentWrapped + MaxEntries)

  # If either of these had been false, one of the branches above would have been
  # executed, making both of these true.
  assert(LargestReference <= CurrentWrapped + MaxEntries)
  assert(CurrentWrapped - MaxEntries < LargestReference)

  assert(TotalNumberOfInserts mod (2 * MaxEntries) == CurrentWrapped mod (2 * MaxEntries))
  # therefore the following line does not change LargestReference mod (2 * MaxEntries).

  LargestReference += TotalNumberOfInserts - CurrentWrapped

  # Substituting into the above inequalities, we get
  assert(TotalNumberOfInserts - MaxEntries < LargestReference)
  assert(LargestReference - MaxEntries <= TotalNumberOfInserts)

  # This is exactly what we want:
  # Entry TotalNumberOfInserts - MaxEntries is evicted,
  # entry LargestReference is referenced,
  # entry LargestReference - MaxEntries is presumably evicted
  # (unless the encoder references LargestReference it but does not emit it
  # until later, which is crazy),
  # entry TotalNumberOfInserts is acknowledged.
  # The spec requires that an evicted entry cannot be referenced and
  # every evicted entry must be acknowledged.
```

Therefore I belive that this issue can be closed.

However, I am worried that `TotalNumberOfInserts - CurrentWrapped` might
underflow if one is doing unsigned arithmetics.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2112#issuecomment-449414630