From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Lang Subject: Re: git-index-pack really does suck.. Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 15:36:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Linus Torvalds , Chris Lee , Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List To: Nicolas Pitre X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 04 01:05:40 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HYs41-0001u6-4D for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 01:05:36 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2992461AbXDCXFM (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:05:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S2992486AbXDCXFM (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:05:12 -0400 Received: from warden-p.diginsite.com ([208.29.163.248]:35509 "HELO warden.diginsite.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S2992461AbXDCXFK (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:05:10 -0400 Received: from wlvims02.diginsite.com by warden.diginsite.com via smtpd (for vger.kernel.org [209.132.176.167]) with SMTP; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 16:05:09 -0700 Received: from dlang.diginsite.com ([10.201.10.67]) by wlvims02.corp.ad.diginsite.com with InterScan Message Security Suite; Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:04:20 -0700 X-X-Sender: dlang@dlang.diginsite.com In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> I don't care *what* it is conditional on, but your arguments suck. You >> claim that it's not a normal case to already have the objects, when it >> *is* a normal case for alternates, etc. >> >> I don't understand why you argue against hard numbers. You have none of >> your own. > > Are hard numbers like 7% overhead (because right now that's all we have) > really worth it against bad _perceptions_? plus 1s overhead on what's otherwise a noop command. > The keeping of fetched packs broke that presumption of trust towards > local objects and it opened a real path for potential future attacks. > Those attacks are still fairly theoretical of course. But for how > _long_? Do we want GIT to be considered backdoor prone in a couple > years from now just because we were obsessed by a 7% CPU overhead? > > I think we have much more to gain by playing it safe and being more > secure and paranoid than trying to squeeze some CPU cycles out of an > operation that is likely to ever be bounded by network speed for most > people. this is why -paranoid should be left on for network pulls, but having it on for the local uses means that the cost isn't hidden in the network limits isn't good. David Lang