From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NLPAO-0005TM-OG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:49:52 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NLPAK-0005Rm-B1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:49:52 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52564 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NLPAK-0005Rj-3D for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:49:48 -0500 Received: from mail-yx0-f188.google.com ([209.85.210.188]:36456) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NLPAJ-0007sf-QJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:49:47 -0500 Received: by yxe26 with SMTP id 26so2490150yxe.4 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:49:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4B2AB55F.1020307@codemonkey.ws> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:49:03 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4B2AB1F2.3060507@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH to consider for 0.12] vmware_vga: Don't crash on too-big DEFINE_CURSOR command List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Roland Dreier Cc: Dave Airlie , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Roland Dreier wrote: > > Thanks for the patch. I'm planning on giving Dave Airlie's series a > > try for 0.12.0. I'm pretty comfortable with those patches (since a > > few of them are mine :-)). I also don't think vmware-vga is going to > > be reliable without them so I don't think pulling in the one fix is > > good enough. > > > > His last patch has the same fix without the printf(). The printf is > > probably something to avoid since a malicious guest could create a > > storm of them. Since libvirt logs stderr by default, the result could > > be pretty nasty. > > Fair enough... I just saw Dave's patches go by, and I guess we > independently fixed the cursor size thing at right around the same time. > How about the following, without the fprintf but with paranoid checks > (since a malicious guest could send a bad DEFINE_CURSOR and do who knows > what with the buffer overrun, which is even worse than spamming logs ;) > Definitely seems reasonable. Regards, Anthony Liguori