From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36813) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1drh14-0004Bl-VY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 04:58:00 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1drh11-0008CZ-1h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 04:57:59 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60810) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1drh10-0008B4-Sg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 04:57:54 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 09:57:50 +0100 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Message-ID: <20170912085750.GA17633@redhat.com> Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" References: <20170724184217.21381-1-brandon.carpenter@cypherpath.com> <20170908173801.15205-7-brandon.carpenter@cypherpath.com> <20170911085043.GE21444@redhat.com> <1505149415.1214.1@smtp.gmail.com> <20170911171015.GU21444@redhat.com> <1505156655.1214.3@smtp.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1505156655.1214.3@smtp.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 6/6] io: Reply to ping frames List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Brandon Carpenter Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:04:15PM -0700, Brandon Carpenter wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Daniel P. Berrange > wrote: > > It feels like this is still dangerous - the client simply has to > > interleave each "ping" with a 1 byte binary frame to get around this > > limit. We need to make sure we have an absolute cap on the output buffer > > size. > > Okay. I see that now that I look at it more closely. This breed of > asynchronous I/O is tricky because the conditions for reading/writing are > all over the place. There's a lot of context to keep in your head. > > I have a fix. And I realized that I was missing a patch in the series for > RFC-compliant closing of websocket connections, which I must have lost > during a rebase. Should I submit v3 of the patch series or just add those > patches to this thread? It is generally preferred practice to submit new top level threads, rather than sending more patches to a previous thread. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|