From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38229)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <groug@kaod.org>) id 1bkx4V-0005oH-5D
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 13:37:08 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <groug@kaod.org>) id 1bkx4R-0000df-FU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 13:37:06 -0400
Received: from 16.mo1.mail-out.ovh.net ([178.33.104.224]:39570)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <groug@kaod.org>) id 1bkx4R-0000dD-9J
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 13:37:03 -0400
Received: from player770.ha.ovh.net (b7.ovh.net [213.186.33.57])
	by mo1.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C93AFFB358
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 19:37:01 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 19:36:57 +0200
From: Greg Kurz <groug@kaod.org>
Message-ID: <20160916193657.0f00a7e6@bahia>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA_CmCsOTbTL3NSGoXPitCqVJobZ_1WiR2ON948+e0MWJg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1474031354-14185-1-git-send-email-groug@kaod.org>
	<CAFEAcA8z4vYDWBGxQCUpncwRuDHbmLE22zNgWEcB5gWVW=3P_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160916163955.3460f28b@bahia>
	<CAFEAcA_CmCsOTbTL3NSGoXPitCqVJobZ_1WiR2ON948+e0MWJg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/8] 9p patches for 2.8 20160916
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:46:26 +0100
Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:

> On 16 September 2016 at 15:39, Greg Kurz <groug@kaod.org> wrote:
> > Ok, I'll look into it... but the important part in this pull request is
> > the "9pfs: fix potential segfault during walk" patch. It fixes a regression
> > introduced in 2.7 by the 9P security fixes. And IIUC, Michael Roth is about
> > to release 2.6.1.1 with these fixes and the regression...
> >
> > Should I send a new pull request without the qtest patches ? Or with the
> > regression fix only ?  
> 
> That's up to you, as long as you don't break "make check".
> You probably want to investigate at least enough to be happy that
> this problem is a bug in the test code, not the feature itself.
> 

It is the test code actually: 9P uses little-endian ordering :)

I'll post an updated version which doesn't break "make check" on both
BE and LE hosts, and re-send a pull request.

Cheers.

--
Greg

> thanks
> -- PMM