XSF Discussion - 2019-07-06

  1. neshtaxmpp


  2. neshtaxmpp

    something stange is happening with ejabberd. you are not connected to this chat... latest git ejabberd. attention

  3. jcbrand

    There are lots of hills that Ge0rG isn't willing to die on

  4. Ge0rG

    Also lots of hills where I'm fighting to death... šŸ˜‰

  5. jonasā€™


  6. Zash


  7. jonasā€™

    I seem to have a stuck s2s link between xmpp.org and wielicki.name

  8. Zash

    Any idea when it started?

  9. jonasā€™


  10. jonasā€™


  11. jonasā€™

    18:33Z was last successful contact

  12. jonasā€™


  13. Zash

    Like say 18:31:17

  14. jonasā€™

    I see an unanswered ping being sent to xmpp.org at 18:35:12 from my prosody

  15. jonasā€™

    I luckily have debug logs \o/

  16. jonasā€™

    18:33:17 also looks unanswered (going further up)

  17. Zash

    I see nothing after that

  18. Zash

    And I see an error.

  19. jonasā€™

    oh yes, I have 18:31:17 as the last answer

  20. Zash

    And I know the reason for that.

  21. jonasā€™

    the reason is?

  22. Zash

    A chain of unshaved yaks I'm afraid

  23. jonasā€™

    oh dear

  24. jonasā€™

    is this again the thing where I start to test/monitor stuff and I find bugs in servers?

  25. Zash

    Bug in lua-event. It's fixed, but there's where the chain of unshaved yaks starts, waiting for iteam to fix the world šŸ™‚

  26. jonasā€™

    I see

  27. jonasā€™

    s/lua-event/epoll/ and see how much fire comes out of things?

  28. jonasā€™

    Ge0rG, are you okay with me registering an account on yax.im for ping-probing my own domains from yax.im every 60s or so, possibly along with xmpp.org for fun & profit?

  29. jonasā€™

    Zash, so you have all data you need?

  30. lovetox

    why are there features registered for MUC and no description what they mean

  31. lovetox

    whats muc_unsecured !?

  32. Zash

    lovetox, opposite of the one where it has a password

  33. Zash

    I think?

  34. lovetox

    whats muc_public vs muc_open

  35. lovetox

    Zash no there is muc_passwordprotected

  36. lovetox

    muc_persistent vs muc_temporary

  37. Zash

    jonasā€™, not entirely sure why the error causes s2s to be stuck

  38. jonasā€™

    muc_public and muc_open are not mutually exclusive

  39. lovetox

    how do you know that?

  40. jonasā€™

    lovetox, I run search.jabbercat.org ;)

  41. Zash

    One is the opposite of hidden and the other is maybe the opposite of members-only?

  42. jonasā€™


  43. jonasā€™

    thatā€™s the case

  44. lovetox

    haha ok, so now we know its used in the wild

  45. lovetox

    but still no idea what it means

  46. jonasā€™

    I do

  47. jonasā€™

    is_joinable_muc = ( "muc_open" in info.features and "muc_passwordprotected" not in info.features and "muc_persistent" in info.features )

  48. jonasā€™

    is_indexable_muc = ( "muc_public" in info.features and "muc_persistent" in info.features )

  49. Zash

    https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#registrar-features has some short descriptions

  50. jonasā€™

    a MUC needs to be indexable && joinable to appear in the listing

  51. jonasā€™

    thus, there are quite a few which are both open and public :)

  52. lovetox

    Zash thats what im looking at

  53. jonasā€™

    I donā€™t look at muc_unsecured

  54. lovetox

    so they added a feature for every state

  55. lovetox

    instead of if muc_open is absent it means its not open

  56. jonasā€™

    Zash, would closing the s2s link from my side help fixing the stuckness?

  57. Zash

    probably, tho I wonder if it'll notice the closing if it doesn't notice incoming data

  58. Zash


  59. jonasā€™

    my question is thus: can I do that, or would that hinder investigations you want to take on this?

  60. Zash

    Hold on

  61. jonasā€™

    alright, I just silenced the alert for now :)

  62. Zash

    jonasā€™, eh, kill it

  63. lovetox


  64. lovetox

    ejabberd returns on disco info on a muc room

  65. lovetox

    a form that has not only the typical roominfo stuff

  66. lovetox

    they also add roomconfig stuff in there even with options

  67. jonasā€™

    Zash, that fixed things

  68. lovetox


  69. lovetox

    should i report this?

  70. lovetox

    looks really weird and not right

  71. Zash


  72. jonasā€™

    whatā€™s weird about it?

  73. lovetox

    a form of formtype muc#roominfo

  74. lovetox

    having muc#roomconfig vars

  75. jonasā€™

    not unusual

  76. Ge0rG

    jonasā€™: feel free to IBR and set up monitoring

  77. jonasā€™

    lovetox, xsf@muc.xmpp.org has it too

  78. jonasā€™

    Ge0rG, thanks!

  79. jonasā€™

    (if you come across zombofant-blackbox-prober@yax.im, thatā€™s me)

  80. lovetox

    i dont see how this is relevant

  81. jonasā€™

    lovetox, it is relevant insofar as this is not an ejabberd specific thing

  82. lovetox

    or is now everything ok if i find X things that do it like that

  83. Ge0rG

    jonasā€™: IIRC the conversations uptime monitor is also doing a bunch of things, with a 2min period.

  84. Ge0rG

    Also my cpu load is back to normal, so I'm relaxed now.

  85. Zash

    https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#registrar-features <name>http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#roominfo</name> <desc>Support for the muc#roominfo FORM_TYPE</desc>

  86. Ge0rG &

  87. lovetox

    why not just add a second form with the correct form type

  88. lovetox

    why even bother having a form type if we can infer nothing from it

  89. Zash


  90. Zash

    What's the correct form type?

  91. Zash

    It looks like it has `http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#roominfo`, which is correct

  92. lovetox

    not if you put then vars in it that are registered under a different form type

  93. jonasā€™

    a form type is just a hint anyways

  94. jonasā€™

    I donā€™t see a reason to duplicate the names and semantics of the fields

  95. Zash

    There's some text under example 10 https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#example-10 that seems to say that this is ok

  96. lovetox

    Zash no

  97. lovetox

    that example is wrong :D

  98. jonasā€™

    > whereas other information is based on the more-stable room configuration, which is why any field defined for the muc#roomconfig FORM_TYPE can be included in the extended service discovery fields (as shown above for the "muc#roomconfig_changesubject" field).

  99. jonasā€™

    is it?

  100. jonasā€™

    the text seems to say itā€™s right

  101. lovetox


  102. lovetox

    indeed XEP allows it

  103. lovetox

    the example is wrong because of this

  104. lovetox


  105. lovetox

    this var is not registered and does not exist

  106. lovetox

    but its unrelated to the topic :)

  107. jonasā€™

    oh it should be roomconfig_changesubject, I guess

  108. lovetox

    no also wrong

  109. lovetox

    i mean you could but there is a better option

  110. jonasā€™

    which is?

  111. lovetox


  112. lovetox

    which is actually registered

  113. lovetox


  114. jonasā€™


  115. lovetox

    it gets even more funnier

  116. lovetox

    i wanted to show that value in Gajim

  117. lovetox

    so i looked at the example, and told ejabberd and prosody devs to add roomconfig_changesubject

  118. lovetox

    both did

  119. lovetox


  120. jonasā€™

    too tired

  121. jonasā€™


  122. Zash


  123. lovetox

    ah no even worse, i requested adding the wrong one muc#roominfo_changesubject

  124. lovetox