From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47218)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <pl@kamp.de>)
	id 1XLr0l-00039U-9r
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 05:56:36 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pl@kamp.de>) id 1XLr0c-0005r2-99
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 05:56:27 -0400
Received: from mx-v6.kamp.de ([2a02:248:0:51::16]:55847 helo=mx01.kamp.de)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <pl@kamp.de>)
	id 1XLr0b-0005qo-Vd
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 05:56:18 -0400
Message-ID: <53FB083E.5010105@kamp.de>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:56:14 +0200
From: Peter Lieven <pl@kamp.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <00c425bd67fc66567dc683205f8f60f7.squirrel@ssl.dlhnet.de>
	<53F6F3DD.2090804@kamp.de>
	<20140822084246.GA32377@noname.redhat.com>
	<53FA1327.5020808@redhat.com> <53FA3D82.4090402@kamp.de>
	<53FAFA58.2090807@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <53FAFA58.2090807@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Fwd: [PATCH v4 07/21] iscsi: Handle failure for
 potentially large allocations]
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: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: benoit.canet@irqsave.net, maxa@catit.be, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com

On 25.08.2014 10:56, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 24/08/2014 21:31, Peter Lieven ha scritto:
>> Am 24.08.2014 um 18:30 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>>> Il 22/08/2014 10:42, Kevin Wolf ha scritto:
>>>>> Unfortunately, I missed that one. The zeroblock is typicalls 512 Byte or 4K depending
>>>>> on the blocksize.
>>>> I don't remember the details, but I think when I went through all
>>>> drivers, I couldn't convince myself that a reasonable block size is
>>>> enforced somewhere. So I just went ahead and converted the call to be on
>>>> the safe side. It can never hurt anyway.
>>> Yeah, a malicious iSCSI target could have unreasonable block sizes.
>> Maybe we should just allow 512b or 4kb blocksize and refuse
>> all other?
> At least CDs and DVDs use 2kb blocksize. :)

power of 2 && <= 4096 ?

>
> Paolo
>