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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Viktor Mihajlovski <mihajlov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > 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 :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list