I wrote this mail, but I accidentally added a wrong header...
(I can point a finger at my client, but I probably did it myself)
Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bert Huijben [mailto:bert_at_qqmail.nl] On Behalf Of Julian Foad
> Sent: woensdag 28 juli 2010 15:42
> To: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: RE: svn commit: r980046 -
> /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: julianfoad_at_apache.org [mailto:julianfoad_at_apache.org]
> > Sent: woensdag 28 juli 2010 15:18
> > To: commits_at_subversion.apache.org
> > Subject: svn commit: r980046 -
> > /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c
> >
> > Author: julianfoad
> > Date: Wed Jul 28 13:18:28 2010
> > New Revision: 980046
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=980046&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Add assertions in FSFS to trap an internal error that is believed to
> > have
> > occurred in real life.
> >
> > See email from me on 2010-06-22, "FSFS error in DAV MERGE - Can't
> open
> > file
> > 'db/transactions/props'", <http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2010-
> > 06/0327.shtml>.
>
> I would prefer to see some error here instead of an assertion. As soon
> as we know how to trigger this bug, this will most likely be a remotely
> exploitable DOS security issue.
>
> The knowledge that is might be remotely (ab)usable, is the exactly why
> you added the test: It can be triggered by remote users.
>
>
> I prefer seeing an error 500 in my logs over an httpd instance on a
> server that is crashed because we added an explicit abort() call.
>
>
> Bert
>
Received on 2010-07-28 15:49:33 CEST