From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63EF22018F for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 22:41:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751512AbcGMWlI (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jul 2016 18:41:08 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:62066 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751475AbcGMWlF (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jul 2016 18:41:05 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECFA12D4F4; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 18:41:03 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Rbh883FqPUgNiO4b5DOdbfVpft4=; b=dYe//V m8TJYEkVzso+iGgHnHPViP7SFtMe7cDxzHZPJ+80Iarkq+Zsbaz7NPg6gVKdEkRp PjAO9vtVDUkEHYku0SQJLHqJiWZZ8A9Y94oWBGQXqZFEQByZa+YLrYHuo9w5lbil hCPVbxvYR2roqDtK8+kWXyFAeq8B0j+FcYECU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=N0aNvETEl7wAj2XkpYaiYLoL+lfa/96T +Nj4UNbPAExlaBykevvbYpWtmhbCsi8fI9Ifr1WNWkrlX+T1BaDrmHctpQ+PswZL 1p31X4cxqrDUuq2VRkp2WYG9nGl+WkW8oes8jdK9RLglzx9RDTUyiyv4ZXYF7f5v jNJs/Fq4V0g= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4BE02D4F3; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 18:41:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5FF9C2D4F2; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 18:41:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Stefan Beller Cc: Shawn Pearce , Jeff King , "git\@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jul 2016, #05; Wed, 13) References: Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 15:41:01 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Beller's message of "Wed, 13 Jul 2016 10:52:59 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: E115160E-494A-11E6-8045-89D312518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Stefan Beller writes: >>> I think Shawns proposal to have a receive.maxCommandBytes is a >>> good way for an overall upper bound, but how does it stop us from >>> going forward with this series? >> >> If we were to do maxcommandbytes, then max_options would become >> irrelevant, no? > > Maybe? > > I do not know what kind of safety measures we want in place here, and > if we want to go for overlapping things? > > Currently there are none at all in your upstream code, although you cannot > push arbitrary large things to either Shawns or Peffs $Dayjob servers, so > I wonder if we want to either agree on one format or on many overlapping > things, as some different hosts may perceive different things as DoS threats, > so they can fine tune as they want? I think those extra knobs can come later. If we are not going to limit with max_options in the end, however, wouldn't it be more natural for the initial iteration without any configuration not to have hard-coded max_options at all? As to the "SQUASH???" compilation fix, I can squash it to the one immediately below it locally; I didn't do so in today's pushout, as it was still unclear if you are already working on a reroll (in which case anything I would do would be a wasted effort).