Max Memory Size

[shargon]

Alternative to #512

[shargon]

@Liaojinghui what do you think about this option?

[Jim8y]

@Liaojinghui what do you think about this option?

I think it is elegent to have this. If we have it at first place, then we might not have those DOS attacks at all. But, i am not sure how many overhead this will introduce.

[Jim8y]

@neo-project/core should we finish this or ignore this?

[shargon]

I think that with ReferenceCounter is easy to know the memory used, so for me it worth. We can combine #202 (comment)

[Jim8y]

@AnnaShaleva @roman-khimov @vncoelho

[roman-khimov]

I don't think it'll be a big improvement after #514, it also affects performance and adds some unintuitive logic (from the VM user POV, it's hard to think about overall memory consumption, whiile it's easy to remember that you can only have MaxStackSize items of MaxItemSize). So I'd say it's not needed now.

[AnnaShaleva]

Agree with Roman, we're going to drown in the VM constraints if introducing more of them. Existing constraints should be enough to restrict the overall memory consumption, and we can reduce MaxStackSize or MaxMaxItemSize in future if needed.

[Jim8y]

So @shargon, we will not merge this pr then.