From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf1-f65.google.com (mail-lf1-f65.google.com [209.85.167.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A6C5469719 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 19:06:13 +0300 (MSK) Received: by mail-lf1-f65.google.com with SMTP id y2so14009414lfy.10 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 09:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 19:06:10 +0300 From: Cyrill Gorcunov Message-ID: <20200914160610.GD991329@grain> References: <20200710120109.91675-1-roman.habibov@tarantool.org> <20200710122958.GF1999@grain> <20200714094533.GK5559@tarantool.org> <20200714104027.GF296695@grain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH] serilaizer: check for recursive serialization List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Roman Khabibov Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 05:43:56PM +0300, Roman Khabibov wrote: > Hi, Cyrill and Igor! > > I tried to compare the addresses of the previous and the current iteration, > if they are equal, then throw "looks like recursion, bad function!”. But I > got swim tests failing. That is, they use some recursive serializers that do > not overflow the stack. Therefore, I settled on the idea of introducing a > recursion limit. Look ok to me, I already gave an ack.