Nathaniel Smith schrieb: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Reasoning about causality would go a long way: Never trust a revision that >> is dated earlier than its parent. And it appears to address the specific DOS >> attacks that Peter found. > > The date on revisions isn't particularly useful, for all the reasons > people have mentioned. > > Another sort of date is unproblematic and would make recovery from > such DOSes easy, though -- add an "audit" table to each db that > records the time (according to the local clock) at which each revision > arrived in that db.
This audit table would be useful for other purposes as well, f.e. "show me all revisions which have been arrived since my yesterday pull". Thomas. -- GPG-Key 0x160D1092 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://thomaskeller.biz Please note that according to the EU law on data retention, information on every electronic information exchange might be retained for a period of six months or longer: http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/?lang=en
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
