Limit Mojo messages recursion depth

mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/validation_test_interfaces.mojom

 // Copyright 2014 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
 // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
 // found in the LICENSE file.
 
 
 [JavaPackage="org.chromium.mojo.bindings.test.mojom.mojo"]
 module mojo.test;
 
 struct StructA {
   uint64 i;
@@ skipping 74 matching lines @@
   Method11(StructG param0);
   Method12(float param0) => (float param0);
   Method13(InterfaceA? param0, uint32 param1, InterfaceA? param2);
   Method14(EnumA param0, EnumB param1);
   Method15(array<EnumA>? param0, array<EnumB>? param1);
   Method16(map<EnumA, EnumA>? param0);
   Method17(array<InterfaceA> param0);
   Method18(UnionA? param0);
 };
 
+interface RecursionDepthTestInterface {

[yzshen1, 2016/09/06 17:03:10]

I think it may make sense to add it to ConformanceTestInterface. And we need to
make JavaScript and Java validation pass this test, too.

WDYT? 

[tibell, 2016/09/07 05:41:20]

Moved it into ConformanceTestInterface.

I agree with should look at Java and JS too. I'd prefer to do that in a separate
CL.

+  Method0(Recursive recursive);
+};
+
 struct BasicStruct {
   int32 a;
 };
 
 interface IntegrationTestInterface {
   Method0(BasicStruct param0) => (array<uint8> param0);
 };
 
 // An enum generates a enum-value validation function, so we want to test it.
 // E.g., valid enum values for this enum should be:  -3, 0, 1, 10
 enum BasicEnum {
   A,
   B,
   C = A,
   D = -3,
   E = 0xA
 };
 
 // The enum validation function should be generated within the scope of this
 // struct.
 struct StructWithEnum {
   enum EnumWithin {
     A, B, C, D
   };
 };
+
+// This is used to test that deeply recursive structures don't blow the stack.
+struct Recursive {
+  Recursive? recursive;
+};