From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1M773x-0002Z6-Lz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 May 2009 08:07:53 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1M773s-0002W5-68 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 May 2009 08:07:52 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=50528 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M773r-0002Vk-Kc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 May 2009 08:07:47 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:44305) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M773p-0008JR-H7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 May 2009 08:07:46 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 09:12:54 -0300 From: Glauber Costa Message-ID: <20090521114405.GC17959@poweredge.glommer> References: <1242866670-15488-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <1242866670-15488-2-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <1242866670-15488-3-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <4A14F35A.6070400@web.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A14F35A.6070400@web.de> Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH STABLE 2/2] net: Fix -net socket parameter checks List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 08:23:22AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > Glauber Costa wrote: > > My commit ea053add700d8abe203cd79a9ffb082aee4eabc0 broke -net socket by > > overwriting an intermediate buffer in the added check_param. Fix this > > by switching check_param to automatic buffer allocation and release, ie. > > callers no longer have to worry about providing a scratch buffer. > > That commit was buggy, too, and is awaiting to be fixed in unstable by > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/43041. > > But more importantly, it makes no sense in stable because its "heart", > param checking for -net is only in unstable (and that's perfectly fine). My interest was in the previous one, since it fixes a bug reported by a Fedora user. I picked this one, only because it fixes the fix ;-) But I can happily leave it out, if you think it is better.