On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 03:41:01PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> 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?
Yeah, I am OK with adding restrictive knobs later as a separate topic. As Stefan notes, upstream does not have the other knobs anyway, and IIRC the push-options feature is not even enabled by default. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
