[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2955638.xlpIv7zoH0@silver>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 11:46:13 +0100
From: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>
To: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
GUO Zihua <guozihua@...wei.com>,
v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] 9p/xen: check logical size for buffer size
On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 1:39:39 AM CET Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 05:35:56PM +0100:
> > Looks good (except of s/rreq/req/ mentioned by Stefano already).
>
> Thanks for the review (I've taken this as a 'reviewed-by' under the
> assumption of that fix, sorry for being a bit aggressive at collecting
> these -- I'd rather overcredit work being done than the other way around)
Yes, you can add my RB of course!
> I'll send this and the three other commits in my 9p-next branch to Linus
> tomorrow around this time:
> https://github.com/martinetd/linux/commits/9p-next
>
>
> > > memcpy(&req->rc, &h, sizeof(h));
> >
> > Is that really OK?
> >
> > 1. `h` is of type xen_9pfs_header and declared as packed, whereas `rc` is
of
> > type p9_fcall not declared as packed.
> >
> > 2. Probably a bit dangerous to assume the layout of xen_9pfs_header being
in
> > sync with the starting layout of p9_fcall without any compile-time
> > assertion?
>
> I've done this in a follow up that will be sent to Linus later as per
> Stefano's suggestion.
Great, one patch less to send, thanks! :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists