qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 0/2] 9pfs: regression init_in_iov_from_pdu truncating size


From: Stefano Stabellini
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] 9pfs: regression init_in_iov_from_pdu truncating size
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 16:33:44 -0700 (PDT)
User-agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)

On Thu, 14 May 2020, Greg Kurz wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2020 11:38:23 +0200
> Greg Kurz <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 10 May 2020 19:41:52 +0200
> > Christian Schoenebeck <address@hidden> wrote:
> > 
> > > Stefano, looks like your original patch needs some more fine tuning:
> > > 
> > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1877688
> > > 
> > > Please check if the assumptions I made about Xen are correct, and please
> > > also test whether these changes still work for you with Xen as intended by
> > > you.
> > > 
> > > Christian Schoenebeck (2):
> > >   xen-9pfs: Fix log messages of reply errors
> > >   9pfs: fix init_in_iov_from_pdu truncating size
> > > 
> > >  hw/9pfs/virtio-9p-device.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > >  hw/9pfs/xen-9p-backend.c   | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > >  2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > 
> > Sorry, I'm off this week, not sure I'll have time to review.
> > So I've only applied patch 1 for now and I'll let Stefano
> > and you sort out what should be done for patch 2.
> > 
> 
> IIUC this requires more thinking and may end up in a complete rewrite of
> the truncating logic. I intend to send a PR soon : is it worth keeping
> patch 1 anyway ? 

Patch 1 is fine. For patch 2 we might need a little more time.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]