paho.mqtt.python icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
paho.mqtt.python copied to clipboard

Seperate keepalive 0 from socket `settimeout`

Open cjavad opened this issue 11 months ago • 3 comments
trafficstars

In certain conditions (MQTT over SSL, and also some websockets stuff) _keepalive is used as a socket timeout, which is all good until used with 0, which triggers as #42 describes it "an infinite loop" preventing any connection from being established. Originally in our testing only the SSL code path was triggered, and referring an older change (#578) _connect_timeout can be used as an alternative, which also semantically makes sense.

I noticed the same value was used on another socket for websocket transports, and with some quick testing both cases fail with keepalive 0:

Using test.mosquitto.org with websockets:

...
>>> client.connect(url, port, keepalive=0)
... (stack trace)
BlockingIOError: [Errno 11] Resource temporarily unavailable

And over SSL:

...
>>> client.connect(url, port, keepalive=0)
... (stack trace)
ssl.SSLWantReadError: The operation did not complete (read) (_ssl.c:1000)

Both TLS and WebSocket rely on initial communication beyond the socket connection to establish a connection which makes a timeout of 0 impossible to respect for either protocol.

Using a seperate value which is non-zero seems to make more sense, although the meaning of keepalive fits the settimeout functionality better, so perhaps only calling it for values greater than 0?

cjavad avatar Dec 18 '24 22:12 cjavad

What is the status on this PR ?

Merging it would help me a ton !

Sporarum avatar May 02 '25 14:05 Sporarum

Hi @Sporarum personally we ended up just using a keepalive value that was consistent with the rest of our system instead of disabling this feature, previously we maintained a runtime patch like this https://gist.github.com/cjavad/b804b4fada7ff0e18cf77d43b7f731dd, which can be adapted to also patch out websockets etc.

But i would imagine @'ing a maintainer could get this moving otherwise.

cjavad avatar May 02 '25 15:05 cjavad

In our case, we want a long keepalive, but a short connection timeout, which does not seem possible because of this bug

Sporarum avatar May 02 '25 15:05 Sporarum