Revert untrusted safety #123
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
👍 |
mgsloan
force-pushed
the
revert-untrusted-safety
branch
from
f61125e
to
ba5efdc
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
@chrisdone @snoyberg I do not think the changes for untrusted input solved the problem universally, and they added overhead in the case where you do trust the input. I've opened #122 about a potential approach for supporting untrusted input. It does not describe all the caveats of this variety of safety, there's quite a bit!
Main reason I am opening this PR is that the last release intentionally did not include these changes, and we may be gearing up for a new release due to #121 . I'd rather not release partial safety for untrusted input, and do not like having an arbitrary size limit of 4096 for
Vector ()