On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 03:52:24AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 09:45:54AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 12:39:19AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 11:57:23AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Assuming we miss nothing and buffers < 4K are broken, > > > > > I think we need to add this to the spec, possibly with > > > > > a feature bit to relax the requirement that all buffers > > > > > are at least 4k in size. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay, should I send a proposal to virtio-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx? > > > > > > How about we also fix the bug for now? > > > > This series unintentionally fix the bug because we are introducing a way > > to split the packet depending on the buffer size ([PATCH 4/5] vhost/vsock: > > split packets to send using multiple buffers) and we removed the limit > > to 4K buffers ([PATCH 5/5] vsock/virtio: change the maximum packet size > > allowed). > > > > I discovered that there was a bug while we discussed memory accounting. > > > > Do you think it's enough while we introduce the feature bit in the spec? > > > > Thanks, > > Stefano > > Well locking is also broken (patch 3/5). It seems that 3/5 and 4/5 work > by themselves, right? So how about we ask Dave to send these to stable? Yes, they work by themselves and I agree that should be send to stable. > Also, how about 1/5? Also needed for stable? I think so, without this patch if we flood the guest with 1-byte packets, we can consume ~ 1 GB of guest memory per-socket. Thanks, Stefano _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
