2017-04-21 17:34 GMT+03:00 Michal Privoznik :
> So the extra "byte" (in fact 4 bytes) are at 0x0084-0x0087. So this is how
> strings are encoded. There are basically two types of strings when it comes
> to XDR. The first one is nonnull_string, which are encoded
On 04/21/2017 01:36 PM, Vasiliy Tolstov wrote:
2017-04-21 14:14 GMT+03:00 Michal Privoznik :
That's how strings are encoded in RPC. the first four bytes say how long the
string is followed by N bytes (padded to 4 bytes boundary) of the actual
string.
I know, I'm use
2017-04-21 14:14 GMT+03:00 Michal Privoznik :
> That's how strings are encoded in RPC. the first four bytes say how long the
> string is followed by N bytes (padded to 4 bytes boundary) of the actual
> string.
I know, I'm use https://godoc.org/github.com/davecgh/go-xdr/xdr2
On 04/21/2017 12:12 PM, Vasiliy Tolstov wrote:
2017-04-20 21:14 GMT+03:00 Vasiliy Tolstov :
I found , so i can decode all typed params to map[string]interface{} thanks!
I'm try to add support for DomainOpenConsole and don't understand
underline payload:
2017-04-20 21:14 GMT+03:00 Vasiliy Tolstov :
> I found , so i can decode all typed params to map[string]interface{} thanks!
I'm try to add support for DomainOpenConsole and don't understand
underline payload:
https://gist.github.com/vtolstov/f8a0f80de82100440b1c0e824436be5a
2017-04-20 20:55 GMT+03:00 Vasiliy Tolstov :
> Thanks, but i don't understand, firstly xdr data contains number of
> params (params_len) or length of params (it size) ?
I found , so i can decode all typed params to map[string]interface{} thanks!
--
Vasiliy Tolstov,
e-mail:
2017-04-20 17:16 GMT+03:00 Michal Privoznik :
> You can see for yourself - just fire up wireshark with libvirt dissector
> installed and issue the API.
>
in my fedora 25 i don't tshark -Ylibvirt does not provide typed params..
> Also, you may look at remote_typed_param_value
On 04/20/2017 03:55 PM, Vasiliy Tolstov wrote:
2017-04-06 14:59 GMT+03:00 Michal Privoznik :
That is not going to be enough. The RPC protocol is spread among other files
too. You really should not hook into our RPC protocol. My question is still
unanswered though - why do
2017-04-05 22:11 GMT+03:00 Vasiliy Tolstov :
> I think in case of internal rpc i need to monitor each libvirt release
> and check git diff or src/remote/remote_protocol.x
I think about api breaking and create generator for rpm messages using
remote_protocol.x data. So i
2017-04-06 15:18 GMT+03:00 Daniel P. Berrange :
> Sure you're free to check if you don't believe me. I'm just making suggestion
> to save you wasting your time.
Ok =)
--
Vasiliy Tolstov,
e-mail: v.tols...@selfip.ru
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 03:16:44PM +0300, Vasiliy Tolstov wrote:
> 2017-04-06 15:09 GMT+03:00 Daniel P. Berrange :
> > Hiding multiple hosts behind the libvirt API doesn't really work for the
> > majority of our API objects, as the object model is designed around a
> > single
2017-04-06 15:09 GMT+03:00 Daniel P. Berrange :
> Hiding multiple hosts behind the libvirt API doesn't really work for the
> majority of our API objects, as the object model is designed around a
> single host concept. You need a different level of API abstraction to
>
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 03:09:12PM +0300, Vasiliy Tolstov wrote:
> 2017-04-06 15:06 GMT+03:00 Vasiliy Tolstov :
> >> We already have a fine grained access control system that can be used to
> >> restrict feature access...
>
>
> Also i don't think that libvirt access control
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 03:06:49PM +0300, Vasiliy Tolstov wrote:
> 2017-04-06 15:05 GMT+03:00 Daniel P. Berrange :
> > We already have a fine grained access control system that can be used to
> > restrict feature access...
>
>
> I know, but i need to proxy - say have one
2017-04-06 15:06 GMT+03:00 Vasiliy Tolstov :
>> We already have a fine grained access control system that can be used to
>> restrict feature access...
Also i don't think that libvirt access control have ability to deny
access based on function and payload. For example i need
2017-04-06 15:05 GMT+03:00 Daniel P. Berrange :
> We already have a fine grained access control system that can be used to
> restrict feature access...
I know, but i need to proxy - say have one endpoint for array of
libvirt hosts. Not worry this is fun and i think for
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 03:01:40PM +0300, Vasiliy Tolstov wrote:
> 2017-04-06 14:59 GMT+03:00 Michal Privoznik :
> > That is not going to be enough. The RPC protocol is spread among other files
> > too. You really should not hook into our RPC protocol.
>
> > My question is
2017-04-06 14:59 GMT+03:00 Michal Privoznik :
> That is not going to be enough. The RPC protocol is spread among other files
> too. You really should not hook into our RPC protocol.
> My question is still
> unanswered though - why do you need it anyway?
Now only for fun,
On 04/05/2017 09:11 PM, Vasiliy Tolstov wrote:
2017-04-05 17:53 GMT+03:00 Andrea Bolognani :
That is true as long as you stick with the public API.
If you start messing with the internal RPC and a change
in libvirt breaks your code, you get to keep both pieces.
I think
2017-04-06 8:35 GMT+03:00 Michal Privoznik :
> Still, you will lack support for some drivers (e.g. ESX, Hyperv, XEN, local
> test driver). Why do you want to hook on the RPC anyway?
My use case only qemu, so all the simple. Also i think that
integration tests covers changes
On 04/05/2017 09:11 PM, Vasiliy Tolstov wrote:
2017-04-05 17:53 GMT+03:00 Andrea Bolognani :
That is true as long as you stick with the public API.
If you start messing with the internal RPC and a change
in libvirt breaks your code, you get to keep both pieces.
I think
2017-04-05 17:53 GMT+03:00 Andrea Bolognani :
> That is true as long as you stick with the public API.
>
> If you start messing with the internal RPC and a change
> in libvirt breaks your code, you get to keep both pieces.
I think in case of internal rpc i need to monitor
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 16:17 +0300, Vasiliy Tolstov wrote:
> I know that, but also i know that libvirt does not break compatibility
> with older clients =).
That is true as long as you stick with the public API.
If you start messing with the internal RPC and a change
in libvirt breaks your code,
2017-04-05 16:09 GMT+03:00 Michal Privoznik :
> On 04/05/2017 12:35 AM, Vasiliy Tolstov wrote:
>> Hi. I know that libvirt devs does not like devs that used internal rpc
>> of libvirt...
>
> Not entirely true. We like all devs, but we just discourage people to
> use our RPC as
On 04/05/2017 12:35 AM, Vasiliy Tolstov wrote:
> Hi. I know that libvirt devs does not like devs that used internal rpc
> of libvirt...
Not entirely true. We like all devs, but we just discourage people to
use our RPC as it's internal. It doesn't offer the full set of features
provided by
2017-04-05 1:35 GMT+03:00 Vasiliy Tolstov :
> Hi. I know that libvirt devs does not like devs that used internal rpc
> of libvirt... I need to create stream to use with upload/download and
> as i see it does not created via rpc call, can you suggest me what
> files i need to
Hi. I know that libvirt devs does not like devs that used internal rpc
of libvirt... I need to create stream to use with upload/download and
as i see it does not created via rpc call, can you suggest me what
files i need to check to understand how virStreamNew works and how to
read write works
27 matches
Mail list logo