On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 03:42:36PM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote: > yep, I did think about adding a FLAG_EXIT (or somesuch) and passing > it down through the call stack to send_request() so that I could do > the check only for the 'exit' command. I decided against it in the > end, obviously! ;-) I had the same thought. I don't think it's worth the trouble, either. > > So I don't think this really changes the robustness much. If we did want > > to address those cases, we'd require actual end-of-record framing in the > > protocol. But I don't think it's worth caring too much about (this is, > > after all, a local and internal socket between two relatively simple > > programs). > > Adding the framing to the protocol was actually my first (very fleeting) > idea. However, I didn't want to get into the 'supporting old/new client > and server combos' problem. One nice thing about this protocol is that it's just between the caching client and server, which ship together and which run for a default of 5 minutes. I think it would probably be OK to just assume you have a matched pair, and change the protocol as you like. So I'd be fine if somebody wanted to tackle this, but I don't think it matters that much. After all, it's proxying requests that came over the credential helper protocol, which also isn't framed. And changing that one _would_ be a compatibility problem. -Peff
