From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mike Haertel <mike@ducky.net>
Message-Id: <200101301804.f0UI4wr01897@ducky.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] 9P2000
Cc: rog@vitanuova.com
In-Reply-To: <20010130110451.132A3199F7@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:04:58 -0800
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 54a460de-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

>there's one case where the client has to be a bit careful about the
>size of messages it generates. a Twalk message can itself fit inside
>the negotiated msize, but require an Rwalk that will not do so. (e.g.
>walking down several short pathname elements).  it might be worth
>requiring a minimum message size of 1+4+2+2+MAXWELEM*13 = 217 which
>would avoid this problem.

This is not nearly as bad as the directory entry situation.  A
client that specified a very small mside could be held responsible
for not producing Twalks whose corresponding Rwalks would exceed
the msize; this would be under control of the client and so is
an avoidable situation.

But the client has no control whatever over the size of a directory
entry it is about to read.  It is helpless.