Stefan Beller <[email protected]> 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). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
