nodejs
diff --git a/‎src/node_messaging.cc‎
Lines changed: 19 additions & 0 deletions b/‎src/node_messaging.cc‎
Lines changed: 19 additions & 0 deletions
diff --git a/‎test/parallel/test-worker-message-port-close-while-receiving.js‎
Lines changed: 15 additions & 0 deletions b/‎test/parallel/test-worker-message-port-close-while-receiving.js‎
Lines changed: 15 additions & 0 deletions
diff --git a/‎test/parallel/test-worker-message-port-infinite-message-loop.js‎
Lines changed: 29 additions & 0 deletions b/‎test/parallel/test-worker-message-port-infinite-message-loop.js‎
Lines changed: 29 additions & 0 deletions
@@ -604,11 +604,30 @@ void MessagePort::OnMessage() {
   HandleScope handle_scope(env()->isolate());
   Local<Context> context = object(env()->isolate())->CreationContext();
 
+  size_t processing_limit;
+  {
+    Mutex::ScopedLock(data_->mutex_);
+    processing_limit = std::max(data_->incoming_messages_.size(),
+                                static_cast<size_t>(1000));
+  }
+
   // data_ can only ever be modified by the owner thread, so no need to lock.
   // However, the message port may be transferred while it is processing
   // messages, so we need to check that this handle still owns its `data_` field
   // on every iteration.
   while (data_) {
+    if (processing_limit-- == 0) {
+      // Prevent event loop starvation by only processing those messages without
+      // interruption that were already present when the OnMessage() call was
+      // first triggered, but at least 1000 messages because otherwise the
+      // overhead of repeatedly triggering the uv_async_t instance becomes
+      // noticable, at least on Windows.
+      // (That might require more investigation by somebody more familiar with
+      // Windows.)
+      TriggerAsync();
+      return;
+    }
+
     HandleScope handle_scope(env()->isolate());
     Context::Scope context_scope(context);
 
 
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+'use strict';
+const common = require('../common');
+
+const { MessageChannel } = require('worker_threads');
+
+// Make sure that closing a message port while receiving messages on it does
+// not stop messages that are already in the queue from being emitted.
+
+const { port1, port2 } = new MessageChannel();
+
+port1.on('message', common.mustCall(() => {
+  port1.close();
+}, 2));
+port2.postMessage('foo');
+port2.postMessage('bar');
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+'use strict';
+const common = require('../common');
+const assert = require('assert');
+
+const { MessageChannel } = require('worker_threads');
+
+// Make sure that an infinite asynchronous .on('message')/postMessage loop
+// does not lead to a stack overflow and does not starve the event loop.
+// We schedule timeouts both from before the the .on('message') handler and
+// inside of it, which both should run.
+
+const { port1, port2 } = new MessageChannel();
+let count = 0;
+port1.on('message', () => {
+  if (count === 0) {
+    setTimeout(common.mustCall(() => {
+      port1.close();
+    }), 0);
+  }
+
+  port2.postMessage(0);
+  assert(count++ < 10000, `hit ${count} loop iterations`);
+});
+
+port2.postMessage(0);
+
+// This is part of the test -- the event loop should be available and not stall
+// out due to the recursive .postMessage() calls.
+setTimeout(common.mustCall(), 0);