From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CFEC1FF16B
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu, 3 Apr 2025 08:46:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 78B3338594;
Thu, 3 Apr 2025 08:46:16 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <ddf1f40c-cfb9-4000-802b-3bc39042f057@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 08:46:12 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20250312132738.2268305-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
<beaba25c-d7b0-40bb-865a-db8a9cd06790@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <beaba25c-d7b0-40bb-865a-db8a9cd06790@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.021 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
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC PATCH http-server] fix #6230: increase allowed
post size
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On 4/2/25 22:09, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 12.03.25 um 14:27 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
>> In some situations, e.g. having a large resource mapping, the UI can
>> generate a request that is bigger than the current limit of 64KiB.
>>
>> Our files in pmxcfs can grow up to 1 MiB, so theoretically, a single
>> mapping can grow to that size. In practice, a single entry will have
>> much less. In #6230, a user has a mapping with about ~130KiB.
>>
>> Increase the limit to 512KiB so we have a bit of buffer left.
>
> s/buffer/headroom/ ?
>
yes, makes more sense^^
>>
>> We have to also increase the 'rbuf_max' size here, otherwise the request
>> will fail (since the buffer is too small for the request).
>> Since the post limit and the rbuf_max are tightly coupled, let it
>> reflect that in the code. To do that sum the post size + max header
>> size there.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> sending as RFC because:
>> * not sure about the rbuf_max calculation, but we have to increase it
>> when we increase $limit_max_post. (not sure how much is needed exactly)
>> * ther are alternative ways to deal with that, but some of those are vastly
>> more work:
>> - optimize the pci mapping to reduce the number of bytes we have to
>> send (e.g. by reducing the property names, or somehow magically
>> detect devices that belong together)
>> - add a new api for the mappings that can update the entries without
>> sending the whole mapping again (not sure if we can make this
>> backwards compatible)
>> - ignore the problem and simply tell the users to edit the file
>> manually (I don't like this one...)
>>
>> also, I tried to benchmark this, but did not find a tool that does this
>> in a good way (e.g. apachebench complained about ssl, and i couldn't get
>> it to work right). @Thomas you did such benchmarks laft according to git
>> log, do you remember what you used then?
>
> argh, my commit message back then looks like I tried to write what I used
> but then fubmled (or got knocked on the head) and sent it out unfinished.
> To my defence, Wolfgang applied it ;P
>
> I'm not totally sure what I used back then, might have been something
> custom-made too. FWIW, recently I used oha [0] and found it quite OK, albeit
> I did not try it with POST data, but one can define the method and pass a
> request body from CLI argument directly or a file, and it has a flag to
> allow "insecure" TLS certs.
>
> [0]: https://github.com/hatoo/oha
thanks, i'll try to do some benchmarks with it
>
>> @@ -1891,7 +1891,7 @@ sub accept_connections {
>> $self->{conn_count}++;
>> $reqstate->{hdl} = AnyEvent::Handle->new(
>> fh => $clientfh,
>> - rbuf_max => 64*1024,
>> + rbuf_max => $limit_max_post + ($limit_max_headers * $limit_max_header_size),
>
> The header part is wrong as the header limits are independent, i.e., the
> request must have less than $limit_max_headers separate headers and all
> those together must be smaller than $limit_max_header_size.
>
> So just adding $limit_max_header_size is enough, no multiplication required.
>
ah yes, seems i read those wrong
>> timeout => $self->{timeout},
>> linger => 0, # avoid problems with ssh - really needed ?
>> on_eof => sub {
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel