Fix rate limiter: atomic INCR+EXPIRE with fixed window (was sliding, never expired)#699
Open
Fix rate limiter: atomic INCR+EXPIRE with fixed window (was sliding, never expired)#699
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Bug
The rate limiter never returned 429s despite the middleware being wired correctly.
Root cause
Two bugs in the original implementation:
1. Non-atomic check-then-increment with sliding window reset
The
expirewas called on every request, which continuously reset the 60s window. Under rapid fire (105 requests in < 1s), the window never closed and the count kept climbing past the limit without triggering.2. Race condition between
getandincr— under concurrent load, multiple requests see count 0 before any increments land.Fix
Increment first with
INCR, only setEXPIREon first request (count == 1) to establish a fixed window. Check the return value ofINCR(which is the new count post-increment):This ensures: