Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] Increased upper limit on lists of pool names
On 03/15/2012 11:48 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
Using the sequence of RPC calls to iterate over this is only
addressing that second part of memory usage. So I'm not really
feeling that's a huge win, given the complexity it introduces.
I'm inclined to say, that if people are creating setups with
1000's of volume & guests, then they can probably spare the
extra memory for us to increase the main RPC message payload
limit somewhat.
Our own docs/internals/rpc.html.in states:
Although the protocol itself defines many arbitrary sized data
values in the
payloads, to avoid denial of service attack there are a number of size limit
checks prior to encoding or decoding data. There is a limit on the maximum
size of a single RPC message, limit on the maximum string length, and limits
on any other parameter which uses a variable length array. These limits can
be raised, subject to agreement between client/server, without otherwise
breaking compatibility of the RPC data on the wire.
Increasing limits makes sense, as long as we have a sane way to do it
while ensuring that on version mismatch, a large packet from the sender
doesn't crash an older receiver expecting the smaller limit.
In our XDR, should we be converting some of our 'type name<LIST_MAX>'
over to 'type name<>' notations, to state that they are effectively
unlimited within the larger bounds of the overall packet size? Is 256k
for overall packet size still okay for the problem at hand?
--
Eric Blake eblake(a)redhat.com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachments:
- signature.asc (application/pgp-signature — 620 bytes)