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@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@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Viktor Mihajlovski <mihajlov@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 :|