| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
|
|
copy call returns a closed file handler, instead we can query for the
blob after insertion and use the returned file handle to be consumed for
upload.
A better solution would be to "pipe" the writes into the database into
the upload, but that involves solving a larger set of issues to be done
later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is simplistic, but adds a minimal protection against trivial
DoS. the call to the ps command should be fast, but could use some
profiling for the case of some ten of thousands files.
- Resolves: #8778
|
|
|
|
use a powers of two ceiling for the reported size in the preamble.
for this to be effective against a passive adversary, cover traffic
should be used in the uploads too.
This is just a first-stop measure; proper research should be done to
determine a good tradeoff between avoiding information leakage and
saving some storage and bandwidth..
- Documentation: #8759
- Related: #8759
|
|
|
