On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 09:27:14AM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 11:32:54AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 01:30:26PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 01:26:57PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > > Another issue is that this patch drops the VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_BUF_SIZE > > > limit that used to be enforced by virtio_transport_set_buffer_size(). > > > Now the limit is only applied at socket init time. If the buffer size > > > is changed later then VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_BUF_SIZE can be exceeded. If > > > that doesn't matter, why even bother with VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_BUF_SIZE > > > here? > > > > > > > The .notify_buffer_size() should avoid this issue, since it allows the > > transport to limit the buffer size requested after the initialization. > > > > But again the min set by the user can not be respected and in the > > previous implementation we forced it to VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_BUF_SIZE. > > > > Now we don't limit the min, but we guarantee only that vsk->buffer_size > > is lower than VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_BUF_SIZE. > > > > Can that be an acceptable compromise? > > I think so. > > Setting buffer sizes was never tested or used much by userspace > applications that I'm aware of. We should probably include tests for > changing buffer sizes in the test suite. Good idea! We should add a test to check if min/max are respected, playing a bit with these sockopt. I'll do it in the test series! Thanks, Stefano _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
