From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 22:42:56 GMT
Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jul 2016, #05; Wed, 13)
Message-ID: <20160713224256.GA8980@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqinw9yxdu.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 03:41:01PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Stefan Beller <sbeller@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