Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[suggestion]: Consider changes in MAX_MESSAGE_LENGTH #2764

Closed
Erigara opened this issue Sep 20, 2022 · 3 comments
Closed

[suggestion]: Consider changes in MAX_MESSAGE_LENGTH #2764

Erigara opened this issue Sep 20, 2022 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
iroha2-dev The re-implementation of a BFT hyperledger in RUST

Comments

@Erigara
Copy link
Contributor

Erigara commented Sep 20, 2022

With large enough Genesis we cant send it through network to other peers through network.

Options:

  • Increase constant value;
  • Make configuration parameter (not sure if possible);
  • Remove at all.
@appetrosyan
Copy link
Contributor

We can make an exception for genesis. But keep the limit.

Otherwise I think we should change it to a mandatory configuration parameter that is either a non-zero size in MB, or no limit. The user should be the one deciding, but we need to give good docs.

Ideally it should say: "if you want to be on the safe side, set it to 0, examine your network, and then set it to double the largest block". And that "running without a limit opens you up to a DoS attack".

@Erigara
Copy link
Contributor Author

Erigara commented Sep 21, 2022

@appetrosyan, I'm not sure that making exception for genesis is feasible solution, this check happens on another abstraction layer where iroha doesn't make distinction between messages it send.

I agree with configuration parameter approach it could be smt like Option<NonZeroU64>, however i should mention that we already had limitation guards on higher layer (limitation on number of instructions and blob size), so seems this guards check the same thing with different angle.

@Erigara
Copy link
Contributor Author

Erigara commented Sep 21, 2022

Was decided to remove this constraint at all as short term solution, long term solution would be introduction of bootstrap peers and hot reloading.

@Erigara Erigara self-assigned this Sep 21, 2022
@Erigara Erigara added the iroha2-dev The re-implementation of a BFT hyperledger in RUST label Sep 21, 2022
Erigara added a commit to Erigara/iroha that referenced this issue Sep 21, 2022
Signed-off-by: Shanin Roman <shanin1000@yandex.ru>
appetrosyan pushed a commit to Erigara/iroha that referenced this issue Sep 21, 2022
Signed-off-by: Shanin Roman <shanin1000@yandex.ru>
appetrosyan pushed a commit that referenced this issue Sep 21, 2022
Signed-off-by: Shanin Roman <shanin1000@yandex.ru>
@Erigara Erigara closed this as completed Sep 22, 2022
appetrosyan pushed a commit that referenced this issue Oct 7, 2022
Signed-off-by: Shanin Roman <shanin1000@yandex.ru>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
iroha2-dev The re-implementation of a BFT hyperledger in RUST
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants