GoogleCodeExporter
commented
8 years ago diff --git a/src/kademlia/routing_table.cpp b/src/kademlia/routing_table.cpp
index 8df6cf3..4642bef 100644
--- a/src/kademlia/routing_table.cpp
+++ b/src/kademlia/routing_table.cpp
@@ -443,6 +443,8 @@ void routing_table::remove_node(node_entry* n
bool routing_table::add_node(node_entry e)
{
+ static size_t max_bucket_size = 50;
+
add_node_status_t s = add_node_impl(e);
if (s == failed_to_add) return false;
if (s == node_added) return true;
@@ -455,16 +457,11 @@ bool routing_table::add_node(node_entry e)
// harden our resistence towards this attack. Perhaps by never
// splitting a bucket (and discard nodes) if the two buckets above it
// are empty or close to empty
- TORRENT_ASSERT(m_buckets.size() <= 50);
- if (m_buckets.size() > 50)
+ //TORRENT_ASSERT(m_buckets.size() <= 100);
+ if (m_buckets.size() > max_bucket_size)
{
- // this is a sanity check. In the wild, we shouldn't
see routing
- // tables deeper than 26 or 27. If we get this deep,
there might
- // be a bug in the bucket splitting logic, or there may
be someone
- // playing a prank on us, spoofing node IDs.
- s = add_node_impl(e);
- if (s == node_added) return true;
- return false;
+ std::cerr << "max bucket limit exceeded: " <<
m_buckets.size() << std::endl;
+ max_bucket_size = m_buckets.size();
}
// if the new bucket still has too many nodes in it, we need to keep
Original comment by vanya...@gmail.com on 16 Feb 2015 at 12:23
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
vanya...@gmail.comon 16 Feb 2015 at 12:03