Lubos Kardos <lkar...@redhat.com> wrote on 04/29/2016 06:40:16 AM: > > It is just a thought. Rpm transaction can be divided in two phases. > In the first phase in the beginning of transaction rpm loads all file infos to > perform transactions checks and then releases them. In the second phase rpm > reloads single file infos to install single packages in row. The memory peak > happens in the first phase when all file infos are loaded. These file infos > contain also file signatures but in the first phase they needn't to contain > them because the signature checking is performed only in the second phase. > > So if the file signatures blow up the file infos so much so we need > to increase > maximum header size then maybe it would be nice not to load file signatures > into file infos during the first phase of transaction when the rpm memory peak > happens.
I agreed and it would be a separate patch. I didn't look very deeply, but how does one detect the phases? I suppose the part to skip would be in lib/trpmfi.c::rpmfilePopulate where the flag RPMFI_NOFILESIGNATURES is checked. If that's the case, maybe the 1st phase could call this function with this flag always set? Stefan > > Lubos > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Florian Festi" <ffe...@redhat.com> > > To: "Stefan Berger" <stef...@us.ibm.com> > > Cc: rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org > > Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 10:27:39 AM > > Subject: Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH 4/5] Extend header size to 64MB > due to file signatures > > > > On 04/27/2016 09:47 PM, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > "Rpm-maint" <rpm-maint-boun...@lists.rpm.org> wrote on 04/27/2016 > > > 05:50:54 AM: > > > > > > > > >> > > >> Well changing header size limit needs a bit more thought. The main > > >> problem is that packages with bigger header will look broken on older > > >> rpm versions and the usual way of dealing with this (adding rpmlib() > > >> Requires) won't work it needs reading the header. > > > > > > These huge headers are only occurring in a few very large packages and > > > only if one applies the per-file signatures. So most users probably > > > won't notice. > > > > > >> > > >> Also I wonder if we should increase the header size even more, to get > > >> rid of this topic for a longer time. I thought about 256MB which gives a > > >> 4 times increase over the 16MB. I am kinda tempted to go even further. > > >> Otoh the limit is there for a reason. And having rpm chew through one GB > > >> of broken data doesn't sound like a pleasant experience. > > > > > > Anything >=16 MB works with signed files for all packages in Fedora 23. > > > Let me know if you want me to resubmit the patch with a higher limit. > > > > Yes, please. 256MB is probably the way to go. Let's hope we don't reach > > that any time soon. > > > > Florian > > > > -- > > > > Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn, > > Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, > > Managing Directors: Paul Argiry, Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, > > Michael O'Neill > > _______________________________________________ > > Rpm-maint mailing list > > Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org > > http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint > > >
_______________________________________________ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint