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 <berra...@redhat.com> > 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 :|
