Jon Bright wrote:
K. Richard Pixley wrote:On second thought, I think you have a good point. Two other possibilities come to mind for a total of three. 1) There's a loop in our delta distribution mechanism. This should already be covered by current logic. If you're sent the same delta twice, what happens? I haven't checked, but my guess is that we're comparing lists of available delta id's anyway so this wouldn't happen. 2) If you already have a 1:foo.bar.com, you're not going to accept another. 3) If the incoming revision is, oh, say, 43762:foo.bar.com, and you haven't generated numbers that high yet, then you're right, we don't have any way to recognize that this wasn't us. Conclusion: using serial:repostory-name would probably require some level of security on a repository basis. Instead of simply accepting all revisions from a particular repository, we may need to list allowable repositories and/or make some attempt to verify that a respository with whom we are communicating really is the repository we think it is. This might be done by chasing known IP addresses. It might be done using a per-machine hash akin to the ones ssh uses in an attempt to flush out man-in-the-middle attacks. It might be done by using TLS with certificates, (another delegated central authority), as our transmission mechanism. In general, this is probably a good thing in the long run as it allows repository administrators, (ie, developers), the ability to fine tune and restrict which data they accept from whom. --rich |
_______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel