[tahoe-dev] [tahoe-lafs] #690: raise size limit on furls

[tahoe-lafs]

#690: raise size limit on furls
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
     Reporter:  adigeo        |       Owner:  warner
         Type:  defect        |      Status:  new   
     Priority:  major         |   Milestone:  1.6.0 
    Component:  code-network  |     Version:  1.4.1 
   Resolution:                |    Keywords:        
Launchpad_bug:                |  
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------

Comment(by zooko):

 One more comment about the question of "Are size limits worth it?".  There
 are three strategies you could take for different fields:

 a) Having no limit is easier for everyone to remember and work with, than
 having a limit of ''X'', for any value of ''X''.  (That's what I said
 above.)

 b) For some fields, it is possible to choose a limit ''X'' such that no
 honest, non-buggy code will ''ever'' exceed ''X'', but the imposition of a
 limit prevents malicious or buggy code from soaking up too much RAM.

 c) For some fields, it is possible to choose a limit ''X'' such that
 ''only very rarely'' will honest, non-buggy code exceed ''X'', but the
 limit prevents malicious code from soaking up too much RAM.

 I am +1 on (a), -2 on (c) (strongly against), and I'm -0 on (b) because I
 don't think the resulting DoS-resistance is very valuable, and deciding
 whether a given field is of type (b) or type (c) has its own cost.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://allmydata.org/trac/tahoe/ticket/690#comment:8>
tahoe-lafs <http://allmydata.org>
secure decentralized file storage grid