On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 11:50:58PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 02:21:58PM -0600, Michael Edlinger wrote:Hi all, I think I've found a bug in either libvirt or spice. I'll give a short description here, but I have a stack exchange question that also has information here: https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/541127/how-to-listen-on-same-port-separate-address-using-spice-from-libvirt Basically, have spice for VM1 listen to port 5900 on 10.0.0.2 and spice for VM2 listen to port 5900 on 10.0.0.3, and you'll get an error message saying the ports collide, even though they shouldn't be (they are listening on different addresses).That sounds like a bug in out port allocator implementation which, at least at the time I last saw it, did not consider addresses, only ports. Would you mind filing a BZ for this issue so we do not forget about it and it can be properly tracked?
Or maybe I should read everything thoroughly: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751969
I've tried going to the #virt irc channel with very limited responses, and would appreciate hearing what you all have to say about this issue. Thanks! - Michael -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
