fix(code-runtime): reject a maxWallMs above Node's maximum timer delay
`config.maxWallMs` is only checked for positivity, and it is handed to `setTimeout`, which clamps any delay above 2^31-1 ms to 1 ms. A deployment configuring a 25-day wall ceiling therefore gets the opposite of what it asked for: every run times out on the first tick. The runtime now range-checks the field at load against MAX_TIMER_DELAY_MS from dsh-timeout and throws, so the misconfiguration fails loud where it is self-contained instead of silently inverting the budget. `computeMs` needs no matching bound: it is compared against measured event-loop utilization rather than fed to a timer. The test asserts both the rejection and that the boundary value itself loads.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -130,4 +130,4 @@ SDK 指示模型编写一个异步的可擦除 TypeScript 函数体,通过 `aw
|
||||
|
||||
**仅序列化的子分发。** `Promise.all` 尚未获得挂钟并行性,仅减少往返次数;模型可能过度期望。说明中已声明;解除此限制与原生并行分发 TODO 所需的并发安全元数据绑定。
|
||||
|
||||
**预算计量读取事件循环,而非 flag。** 忙碌时间轮询(`eventLoopUtilization()`)比精确 CPU 计量更粗糙——预算到期最多延迟一个轮询间隔——且其正确性声明(「pending 的分发不能暂停它」)对恶意程序是承重的。两侧都有单元测试(带 pending 诱饵分发的热循环在 `computeMs` 处死亡;在慢绑定上空闲的程序存活到 `maxWallMs`),轮询间隔是内部常量而非配置——部署无法将其误调为绕过手段。
|
||||
**预算计量读取事件循环,而非 flag。** 忙碌时间轮询(`eventLoopUtilization()`)比精确 CPU 计量更粗糙——预算到期最多延迟一个轮询间隔——且其正确性声明(「pending 的分发不能暂停它」)对恶意程序是承重的。两侧都有单元测试(带 pending 诱饵分发的热循环在 `computeMs` 处死亡;在慢绑定上空闲的程序存活到 `maxWallMs`),轮询间隔是内部常量而非配置——部署无法将其误调为绕过手段。`maxWallMs` 是配置项,且会传入 `setTimeout`,后者会把超过 `MAX_TIMER_DELAY_MS`(2^31-1 ms)的延迟夹到 1 ms;因此仅有正数校验会放行一个 25 天的上限,它在第一个 tick 就到期,使每次运行都超时。worker 运行时正因如此在加载时对该字段做范围校验。`computeMs` 不需要上界,因为它对照的是实测占用率,而不是交给定时器。
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user