similar to: [PATCH] docs: Prefer 'cookie' over 'handle'

This is about the simplest implementation of NBD Structured Replies (SR) that we can do right now. It accepts NBD_OPT_STRUCTURED_REPLIES when negotiated by the client, but only sends back the simplest possible SR when required to by NBD_CMD_READ. The rest of the time it will send back simple replies as before. We do not modify the plugin API so plugins are unable to send complex SRs. Also we

I'm hoping to implement .extents for the nbd plugin; this is a prerequisite. I'm not sure about patch 3 - if we like it, I'll squash it to 2, if we don't, I think we are okay just dropping it. I'm also wondering if we have to worry about malicious plugins that don't populate the entire .pread buffer in an effort to get nbdkit to expose portions of the heap; my patch 7 loses

On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 12:15?AM Eric Blake <eblake at redhat.com> wrote: > > In libnbd, we quickly learned that distinguishing between 'handle' > (verb for acting on an object) and 'handle' (noun describing which > object to act on) could get confusing; we solved it by renaming the > latter to 'cookie'. Copy that approach into the NBD spec, and make it

v2 was here: https://lists.debian.org/nbd/2022/11/msg00030.html The bulk of the changes since then are: - forbid NBD_OPT_EXPORT_NAME once extended headers are negotiated (Wouter) - consistently use 'maximum payload', rather than a haphazard mix of 'maximum block payload' (Vladimir) At this point, I want to make sure we are happy with the spec before re-posting patches for

Patch 1 played with an early draft of Rich's Fedora 30 libnbd package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713767#c17 Note that comment 21 provides a newer package 0.1.1-1 with a different API; and that libnbd has more unreleased API changes in the pipeline (whether that will be called 0.2 or 0.1.2); so we'll have to tweak things based on what is actually available in distros.

On 3/8/19 4:04 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > This is about the simplest implementation of NBD Structured Replies > (SR) that we can do right now. > > It accepts NBD_OPT_STRUCTURED_REPLIES when negotiated by the client, > but only sends back the simplest possible SR when required to by > NBD_CMD_READ. The rest of the time it will send back simple replies > as before. We do

libnbd-0.1.2-1 is now available in Fedora 29/30 updates-testing, although it was not compiled against libxml2 so it lacks uri support (I ended up testing patch 4 with a self-built libnbd). Diffs since v1 - rebase to master, bump from libnbd 0.1 to 0.1.2, add URI support, better timing results Still not done - patch 5 needs associated tests Eric Blake (5): nbd: Check for libnbd nbd:

This was v3 patch 2/22, reworked to address the confusion about how a structured reply header is read in two pieces before getting to the payload portion. I'm still working on rebasing the rest of my v3 series (patches 1, 3-22) from other comments given, but this seemed independent enough that it's worth posting now rather than holding it up for the rest of the series. Eric Blake (4):

Updated based on other changes that have happened in the meantime: - rely more on cleanup.h (throughout) - split structured read for easier review (patch 2 and 3 were combined in v1) - rely on nbdkit not leaking a server's partial answer (patch 3) - add tests (patch 5) - other bug fixes I found while testing it - drop EOVERFLOW patch for now; it will be separate once upstream NBD protocol

libnbd-0.1.4-1 is now available in Fedora 29/30 updates testing. Diffs since v2 - rebase to master, bump from libnbd 0.1.2 to 0.1.3+, add tests to TLS usage which flushed out the need to turn relative pathnames into absolute, doc tweaks Now that the testsuite covers TLS and libnbd has been fixed to provide the things I found lacking when developing v2, I'm leaning towards pushing this on

Previously discussed here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2019-July/msg00213.html It turns out that deferring callbacks is a PITA. (It would be a bit easier if C has closures.) However by rewriting the example we can avoid the need to use the cookie at all and make it run a bit more efficiently, so let's do that instead. Rich.

Add a new negotiation feature where the client and server agree to use larger packet headers on every packet sent during transmission phase. This has two purposes: first, it makes it possible to perform operations like trim, write zeroes, and block status on more than 2^32 bytes in a single command. For NBD_CMD_READ, replies are still implicitly capped by the maximum block payload limits

On Sat, Mar 04, 2023 at 10:03:46PM +0200, Nir Soffer wrote: > On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 12:15?AM Eric Blake <eblake at redhat.com> wrote: > > Makes no difference to implementations (other than older code > > still using 'handle' may be slightly harder to tie back to the spec). > > To avoid confusion with older code that carefully used "handle" to match

With some crufty sed scripts we can generate functions that map from NBD protocol flags (eg. NBD_CMD_READ) to strings ("NBD_CMD_READ"). This works on GNU sed and with FreeBSD, also with GNU sed's --posix option, so I guess the sed code is POSIX-compatible. Rich.

hi there, I''m not sure if it is better to use the ml or the forum so I ended to post on both ... I''m trying to login into a page that is using javascript to set a cookie: <script language="JavaScript"> {text "\n" " \n" " \n" " document.cookie = ''vhp_js=v995105608h85339294p;path=/;domain=.venere.com;expire=0'';

As discussed in this thread, the parameter is an invitation to write code with race conditions: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2019-July/thread.html#00309 --- docs/libnbd.pod | 6 +- examples/glib-main-loop.c | 10 ++-- examples/strict-structured-reads.c | 2 +- generator/generator | 57

Hi, I noticed that there is a cookie set by my rails scaffold that contains a 32 character hash code in it, but when I tried to change its value using Cookies[:_session_id], nothing happened, it stays the same! How am I supposed to change the session_id? Thanks. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

I''m trying to set a multi-value cookie but for some reason it''s not working. Any help would be appreciated. cookies[:user] = { :value => {:email=>params[:login][:email], :passwd=>params[:login][:passwd]}, :expires => 30.days.from_now, :path => "/login"} -- Thiago Jackiw

In the initial version of my application I am just going to require cookies - down the road _considering_ changing that and providing something that works without. Anyway, this is somewhat of a two part question 1. Does this approach make sense or is there a better way typically used? Just have a before_filter in my application.rb to verify that the :_session_id cookie is present. If it

Time to enhance the nbd plugin to request structured replies from the server. For now, deal only with structured reads. The server can now return sparse reads, even though we need nbdkit version 3 before we can in turn return sparse reads back to the client. In general, we have to assume the server is malicious, and so we must sanity check that it sends replies we expect. Thus, we have a choice