Validate XFAM values using a bitmask #79
Draft
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This ports XFAM validation from this (currently unmerged) PR to cvm-reverse-proxy: flashbots/cvm-reverse-proxy#48
Note that unlike the PR linked above, this does NOT introduce MRSEAM validation.
Currently, this will always check the value complies with the policy mask, regardless of platform. This works with our observed values from GCP and Azure which are used in tests.
But it may not work with some bare metal configurations or if Google/Microsoft change their cloud configuration in the future.
So it could be worth using different masks for different platforms. I will not merge this until we get agreement on what the policy should be here.
Closes #38