Re: [PATCH] object-name: reject too-deep recursive ancestor queries

From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: Nov 24, 2023, 10:11 UTC
Message-ID: <ZWB26TH0CFW1KC4L@tanuki>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqy1en7af2.fsf@gitster.g>

On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 06:44:33PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> 
> > I have to wonder whether we should tighten restrictions even further:
> > instead of manually keeping track of how deep in the stack we are, we
> > limit the length of revisions to at most 1MB. I would claim that this
> > limit is sufficiently large to never be a problem in practice.
> 
> Tempting.
> 
> > Revisions
> > are limited to 4kB on most platforms anyway due to the maximum path
> > length.
> 
> I do not quite get this part, though.
> 
> When we get "HEAD~~~~~~~~~^2~~~~~~" from the user, do we somehow try
> to create a file or a directory with that name and fail due to
> ENAMETOOLONG?

Sorry, this was a typo on my part. I didn't mean "revision", I meant "reference" here. References are limited to at most 4kB on most platforms due to filesystem limitations, whereas revisions currently have no limits in place.

Patrick

Show 7 quoted lines

> There are ways like "git rev-list --stdin" to cause Git read input
> lines of arbitrary length, so I do not think the command line length
> limit does not come into the picture, either.
> 
> But I do agree that the only useful use of such a revision string
> that is longer than 1MB would be to attack.
>