From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE9541F47C for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 20:41:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=AKFjfcHG; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230155AbjAXUlU (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jan 2023 15:41:20 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50228 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229584AbjAXUlT (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jan 2023 15:41:19 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-x102b.google.com (mail-pj1-x102b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 298424C0C0 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 12:41:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x102b.google.com with SMTP id x2-20020a17090a46c200b002295ca9855aso19910792pjg.2 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 12:41:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=MqWio9hAdTec7v+pWBW28Yl13Vn/yS63NFZVeS9tAQ4=; b=AKFjfcHG+kEtciqykPoUnENLQofZbSTUoetec7qPZbNW1YsE4G2MyTMjtszUg3XEP/ wECqncJ+rr/ThwRyo8VYJFGDs7Ornto3zwpWV50vzzCsx8srs/3ObJGzzYgqxjgy+7vu jByzF5SHcrLJDO/cO/lFxkxNv4O3/W60UXsksqZVXybGTZo5kdB2A7hodgGbaNBZwVce 4/SGRpeTFMYrVlO8xsB5+SzaDQe8p1cjifUJ874X+akYEliRrkrnwrtO6fra/yKLD/cq CfFcqXHkd0qujQfVAzG4R4Ls8AB2NCbK9oovYTCsBAulRRjkY0EDmzD3IqvG+07eAwak sCvw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=MqWio9hAdTec7v+pWBW28Yl13Vn/yS63NFZVeS9tAQ4=; b=TtfmQu1qT7mWDy8cp+LBc0ajzeQyD+X7RtY4B3WOzS2m5a3ErbMW7HyHF/lI6525MP FeiwMyPaUfoLh7bB/ycnVhODppoCss9JCcNlc5OFx7tU2EioOV2P8OKTFWHsyTeFyobf f1Py5U/htCZGxYDKZfb4GysBNP+43Oa9/GHeig90zI69Slp5i30SJ30GfTlfNnoyA5DP 7CivGnwfIcPodTex2nDTSXiJs7LzsuUbMiXsb6GUgsHIBHXJ41iev3iXy49V/y5q81fU bmhUvVpXUKdzLw6Ytp/whueG7gwxi+UMtx+O19wofFHjBxDWOPwM7P25V5BNr6Q/YhjW wieQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2kroBeZzqcNvN8RwKdJQDuyNBlyLEpvAZSg6dpDMBYZmjFKG5b97 19FK7/GvoQxqC8LefutcF0g= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXvh+xKWTXW/zj9qknvWLbmem6Piw3X2PMwiesxNEPA1vM6xnvp8AXeVLnsk1e8debai4W5k3w== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9b8b:b0:189:d8fb:152d with SMTP id y11-20020a1709029b8b00b00189d8fb152dmr29446207plp.25.1674592877582; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 12:41:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (33.5.83.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.83.5.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p20-20020a637f54000000b004788780dd8esm1784024pgn.63.2023.01.24.12.41.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 24 Jan 2023 12:41:17 -0800 (PST) Sender: Junio C Hamano From: Junio C Hamano To: Derrick Stolee Cc: Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, me@ttaylorr.com, vdye@github.com, avarab@gmail.com, steadmon@google.com, chooglen@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2.5 02/11] bundle: verify using connected() References: <771a2993-85bd-0831-0977-24204f84e206@github.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 12:41:16 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Derrick Stolee's message of "Tue, 24 Jan 2023 13:46:02 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Derrick Stolee writes: >> I do not see the need to say "even" here. In what other situation >> do we make connectivity checks, and is there a need to be more >> strict than others when checking fetched packfiles? > > I suppose that I was implying that fetches are the more common > operation, and the scrutiny applied to an arbitrary pack-file from > a remote is probably higher there. However, who knows where a > bundle came from, so the scrutiny should be the same. Ah, I see that is where that "even" came from. And yes, I agree that unbundling and fetch should be suspicious of their input to the same degree.