Re: [PATCH] overflow check in ra_serf + malfunction -> error

2013-07-15 Thread Ivan Zhakov
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 09:14:20PM +0400, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >>> It was probably added to avoid issues with restarting authentication >>> requests or something. As you correctly pointe

Re: [PATCH] overflow check in ra_serf + malfunction -> error

2013-07-11 Thread Ivan Zhakov
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 09:14:20PM +0400, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >> It was probably added to avoid issues with restarting authentication >> requests or something. As you correctly pointed responses can be very >> different because of hash rando

Re: [PATCH] overflow check in ra_serf + malfunction -> error

2013-07-11 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 09:14:20PM +0400, Ivan Zhakov wrote: > It was probably added to avoid issues with restarting authentication > requests or something. As you correctly pointed responses can be very > different because of hash randomization. So I'm going to remove > partially received requests

Re: [PATCH] overflow check in ra_serf + malfunction -> error

2013-07-11 Thread Ivan Zhakov
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Bert Huijben wrote: > For some requests it might be safe, but in general it isn’t. And since the > randomization added to the hash behavior the chance that it is unsafe > increased. > > But I’m afraid that we originally added this feature to cover for some other >

Re: [PATCH] overflow check in ra_serf + malfunction -> error

2013-07-11 Thread Bert Huijben
For some requests it might be safe, but in general it isn’t. And since the randomization added to the hash behavior the chance that it is unsafe increased. But I’m afraid that we originally added this feature to cover for some other stability problem. (I didn’t see many broken connections with

Re: [PATCH] overflow check in ra_serf + malfunction -> error

2013-07-11 Thread Ivan Zhakov
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > I'd like to change an SVN_ERR_MALFUNCTION() in ra_serf into an > error return, because aborting doesn't help with diagnosing problems. > > I also think that we should check for overflow in this case, since > code further down depends on tha

Re: [PATCH] overflow check in ra_serf + malfunction -> error

2013-07-11 Thread Greg Stein
On Jul 11, 2013 6:48 AM, "Stefan Sperling" wrote: > > I'd like to change an SVN_ERR_MALFUNCTION() in ra_serf into an > error return, because aborting doesn't help with diagnosing problems. > > I also think that we should check for overflow in this case, since > code further down depends on that no

[PATCH] overflow check in ra_serf + malfunction -> error

2013-07-11 Thread Stefan Sperling
I'd like to change an SVN_ERR_MALFUNCTION() in ra_serf into an error return, because aborting doesn't help with diagnosing problems. I also think that we should check for overflow in this case, since code further down depends on that not happening. Not very likely, since it's an off_t, but still.