From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49844) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZgeST-0005EP-NW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:51:34 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZgeSQ-0003ft-Up for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:51:33 -0400 Received: from smtp.andrew.cmu.edu ([128.2.105.202]:33469) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZgeSQ-0003fo-RO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:51:30 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:51:26 -0400 From: "Gabriel L. Somlo" Message-ID: <20150928195125.GS2080@HEDWIG.INI.CMU.EDU> References: <1443308129-19965-1-git-send-email-somlo@cmu.edu> <560940F4.2010003@redhat.com> <56099919.10704@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56099919.10704@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] fw_cfg: insert string blobs via qemu cmdline List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, Laszlo Ersek , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, jordan.l.justen@intel.com On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 01:46:33PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 09/28/2015 07:30 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > >> > >> +Small enough items may be provided directly as strings on the command > >> +line, using the syntax: > >> + > >> + -fw_cfg [name=],content= > >> + > > > > Please consider spelling out that these blobs will NOT be NUL-terminated > > when viewed on the guest. (It kinda follows from all the other fw_cfg > > things, but once we leave host-side files for qemu command line strings, > > it might become non-obvious to users.) > > Or else GUARANTEE that it will be NUL-terminated (and the only way to > get blobs that are not NUL terminated is to use files rather than content=). I went with the first suggestion (leave out the trailing '\0' from the blob payload, and say so in docs/specs/fw_cfg.txt) in v2 of the patch. Do you feel strongly about including the \0 ? Otherwise, we're already there :) Thanks much, --Gabriel