From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A6DFB9D9A for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 13:20:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 43C4034882 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 13:20:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 13:20:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 85E68469D2; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 13:20:27 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 13:20:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion , "DERUMIER, Alexandre" , "aderumier@odiso.com" References: <20231210144940.2031248-1-aderumier@odiso.com> <20231210144940.2031248-2-aderumier@odiso.com> <468db986-a957-4216-b4c7-ce9243f9f092@proxmox.com> <05582a7f6e3e17166fa9af2e757fc8fffd4d9e1d.camel@groupe-cyllene.com> <5ab928ae-2191-465d-90b8-570895f56d8f@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <5ab928ae-2191-465d-90b8-570895f56d8f@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.077 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server 1/1] fix #4507 : increase qemu max openfiles limit X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 12:20:28 -0000 Am 12.12.23 um 12:55 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: > Meh, I think the application that actually can use many FDs, which are not > *that* many, should just raise it to the highest limit possible, so I'd > rather do this inside QEMU. > Doing such stuff from the outside is almost always a bit more maintenance > burden, e.g., cue to our various hacks over multiple releases for correctly > waiting for the VMID scope to exit. > > We can just patch it in for now downstream while checking if upstream would > accept that, IMO in modern times FD limits are not much a protection, > especially if raised from 1024 to a few hundreds of thousands, especially > as in QEMU the amount isn't really controllable via the guest (i.e., > unprivileged code). Okay, then I'll prepare a QEMU patch and also ask upstream.