09:45:01 <xnbya> moneromooo: I don't have a PoC, but 100 post v4 blocks are a problem
14:33:14 * moneromooo going to restrict some requests some more soon ^_^
15:44:41 <moneromooo> vtnerd_: do you think utf8canonical should be changed for the boost code you pasted (in another patch) ?
15:46:35 <moneromooo> Also, the "only works if log_filter returns codepoint equal or
15:46:46 <moneromooo> " comment is just about buffer overflow, right ? No other reason ?
15:47:33 <moneromooo> (ie, a copy on first longer would work)
16:05:45 <moneromooo> What do people think of the "peer claims higher version, we might be forked" message ? Looks there's a neverending supply of cunts making this message useless now. Remove ?
16:06:36 <moneromooo> Or move to info/debug.
16:08:26 <selsta> I’d move it to info instead completely removing it
16:11:49 <sarang> Can it realistically be used for any meaningful action by the user?
16:12:17 <moneromooo> Yes: go to getmonero.org to see if they forgot to update for a fork.
16:12:57 <sarang> But in the face of so much spam?
16:13:01 <moneromooo> There might be a way to test for plausibility by asking for some PoW hashes and checking for diff...
16:13:10 <moneromooo> Oh no. Now it's mostly pointless.
16:13:18 <sarang> Yeah that's what I mean
16:13:24 * moneromooo takes it to debug
16:21:20 <scoobybejesus> If you're taking requests :) , the "Last scheduled hardfork time suggests..." message could be made less frequent.  Perhaps every 6, 8, or 12 hours, rather than every 2?
16:23:28 <moneromooo> I removed this one. Though I kept the other one, not sure why. I'll remove it too.
16:29:36 <selsta> I thought you removed it already
16:30:18 <selsta> ah wait there are two
16:30:29 <selsta> that’s what you meant
16:30:43 <moneromooo> Yes, I did not remember/notice there was another.
16:38:07 <selsta> should we remove unknown seed nodes from code?
16:38:42 <selsta> (those that have been down for a while)
16:39:14 <moneromooo> I have no objections since we have a few new ones now.
16:39:25 <moneromooo> Might want to ping pony about the IPs.
16:39:31 <selsta> we have 8 online 6 offline
16:39:38 <selsta> those are apparently not fluffys
16:39:45 <selsta> or he forgot about them :)
16:50:02 <UkoeHB_> moneromooo: for some reason a bunch of your recent PRs have been doubled up (e.g. 6568/6569)
16:50:49 <selsta> release-v0.16 and master branch
16:50:49 <moneromooo> Looks fine to me. One is for master, the other for release-v0.16.
17:40:06 <rbrunner> Is the current version of the 'utf8canonical' method already the "release candidate"? Can I test that again now?
17:43:57 <rbrunner> Or you do wait for some more feedback from vtnerd in this, moneromooo? For my own stuff I would propose to make optimizations together with vtnerd only in the master PR, so the branch PR gets ready early
17:44:10 <selsta> +1
17:50:35 <moneromooo> I've made the changes I thought were worth it, I don't intend to change it again unless bug. All the other stuff can be done in another PR.
17:51:36 <rbrunner> Alright, thanks. Will play with the method interactively a little more with the help of the MMS then. Alice in Chinese Hanzi and all :)
17:52:27 <moneromooo> The only difference is tolower -> towlower IIRC.
18:26:06 <rbrunner> Alright, I am through with my release PR.
18:26:24 <rbrunner> The master PR will have to wait for the weekend, but I guess that does not matter :)
19:28:53 <moneromooo> Any windows coder here ? There's a (presumably) easy patch that could be made, to detect FAT where the blockchain is and complain, since it will break for files > 4 GB.
19:29:24 <xiphon> moneromooo: wll have a look
19:29:30 <moneromooo> Thanks.
19:37:37 <hyc> FAT16 as opposed to FAT32? who still uses FAT16?
19:39:31 <moneromooo> No idea about the details of which variant is fine or not. I guess a Windows coder will know where to find that info :P
19:39:51 <moneromooo> But there's been at least two reports of this on github. One just a few days ago.
19:40:54 <moneromooo> OK, a month and a half. And it was FAT32. Maybe there are variants of FAT32 ? https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/6429, 6th April.
19:41:39 <hyc> hmmmm
19:42:54 <SerHack> lol FAT-16? It's really old ~Windows 2000
19:43:41 <hyc> ah you're right, filesize limit on fat32 is 4GB
20:10:55 <selsta> luigi1111w: can you merge 6551 tonight?
20:20:10 <selsta> 6532, 6540, 6541, 6543, 6545, 6554, 6560, 6562, 6567, 6569
20:20:21 <selsta> ^ these would also be nice to merge
20:20:38 <selsta> then we need 1 more merge list tomorrow and then we can tag
20:49:12 <vtnerd_> moneromooo : just noticed that easylogging doesn't include any boost headers, so dunno. I liked the separate encode/decode functions (more flexible/reusable) and the code could be copied
20:50:01 <luigi1111w> selsta yes
20:59:24 <vtnerd_> theres a few more checks for invalid utf8 encodings: (1) top two bits of every trailer byte is checked, (2) "overlong" encodings, (3) invalid "surrogate" values, and (4) invalid values in the first byte
21:48:46 <hyc> fwiw, we've got comprehensive UTF8 validators/normalizers in the OpenLDAP source tree, if you want them
21:49:25 <hyc> we found it was as much time to scan first for bad sequences, and copy, as it was to simply copy unconditionally (without scanning first)
22:18:17 <moneromooo> Hrm. I'll leave it for now then.
22:33:26 <luigi1111w> xiphon would you mind approving 6554 if it's how you want now?
22:33:47 <xiphon> luigi1111w: on it
22:49:41 <selsta> luigi1111w: it’s approved now
22:50:01 <selsta> so I checked some of the down seed nodes, looks like fluffy added them 3 years ago
22:51:12 <selsta> maybe he did forget about them
22:51:50 <luigi1111w> thanks
23:40:55 <selsta> vtnerd_: what is left so that the supercop PR can get merged?
23:41:08 <selsta> (the one in the supercop repo)
23:41:11 <selsta> only an approval?
23:41:40 <moneromooo> IIRC I checked the asm but wanted luigi to check the crypto semantics.
23:41:50 <moneromooo> (the C parts)
23:42:00 <moneromooo> Other than that it was good to go.
23:42:07 <selsta> I asked luigi to look at it
23:42:12 <selsta> he did I think
23:42:15 <moneromooo> (or someone else with crypto knowledge)
23:42:23 <moneromooo> Oh good, then it can go in.
23:43:05 <selsta> I tested it on my laptop and it works quite well so would be cool to get into the next major release :D
23:44:08 <moneromooo> Except the assert might splatter key material onto the disk. Would be nice to remove it.
23:44:27 <moneromooo> Can be done later I guess.
23:44:57 <moneromooo> Approved.