[libvirt] [PATCHv2] rpc: message related sizes enlarged
Daniel P. Berrange
berrange at redhat.com
Wed May 1 07:54:55 UTC 2013
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 05:47:03PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/26/2013 05:59 AM, Viktor Mihajlovski wrote:
> > From: Daniel Hansel <daniel.hansel at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > We have seen an issue on s390x platform where domain XMLs larger than 1MB
> > were used. The define command was finished successfully. The dumpxml command
> > was not successful (i.e. could not encode message payload).
> >
> > Enlarged message related sizes (e.g. maximum string size, message size, etc.)
> > to handle larger system configurations used on s390x platform.
> >
> > To improve handling of the RPC message size the allocation during encode process
> > is changed to a dynamic one (i.e. starting with 64kB initial size and increasing
> > that size in steps up to 16MB if the payload data is larger).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Hansel <daniel.hansel at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Viktor Mihajlovski <mihajlov at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > src/libvirt.c | 4 ++++
> > src/remote/remote_protocol.x | 6 +++---
> > src/rpc/virnetmessage.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > src/rpc/virnetmessage.h | 3 ++-
> > src/rpc/virnetprotocol.x | 16 +++++++++++----
> > tests/virnetmessagetest.c | 2 +-
> > 6 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> I think this patch is safe for 1.0.5, but want to give anyone else
> another day to raise any objections before I apply it.
I'm not sure I agree. The RPC code is a pretty critical part of our
code and I think there's non-negligable risk in this change. So I'm
inclined to say we should wait to 1.0.6
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
More information about the libvir-list
mailing list