On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 06:44:33PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> 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 > 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. >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
