From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48731) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WkcXc-0001Wj-08 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 May 2014 13:00:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WkcXV-0007h0-RG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 May 2014 13:00:27 -0400 Message-ID: <5373A11E.90005@suse.de> Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 19:00:14 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1399473780-20374-1-git-send-email-marcel.a@redhat.com> <1399473780-20374-3-git-send-email-marcel.a@redhat.com> <53725800.3030404@suse.de> <53726D96.8030404@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <53726D96.8030404@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/4] qapi: output visitor crashes qemu if it encounters a NULL value List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake , Marcel Apfelbaum , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino Cc: mst@redhat.com, aik@ozlabs.ru, agraf@suse.de, blauwirbel@gmail.com, jcmvbkbc@gmail.com, edgar.iglesias@gmail.com, gxt@mprc.pku.edu.cn, peter.chubb@nicta.com.au, proljc@gmail.com, armbru@redhat.com, scottwood@freescale.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, hpoussin@reactos.org, aliguori@amazon.com, lersek@redhat.com, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, chouteau@adacore.com, jan.kiszka@web.de, stefanha@redhat.com, cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com, peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com, mark.langsdorf@calxeda.com, michael@walle.cc, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, aurelien@aurel32.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am 13.05.2014 21:08, schrieb Eric Blake: > On 05/13/2014 11:36 AM, Andreas F=C3=A4rber wrote: >> Am 07.05.2014 16:42, schrieb Marcel Apfelbaum: >>> A NULL value is not added to visitor's stack, but there is no >>> check for that when the visitor tries to return that value, >>> leading to Qemu crash. >>>=20 >>> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake Signed-off-by: >>> Marcel Apfelbaum >>=20 >> Where does the Rb come from on this v1? Is it in any tree >> already? >>=20 >=20 > The (weak) R-b was here:=20 > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2014-02/msg02861.html Thanks. >=20 So Luiz was okay with it too, but his last message seems to be indicating this needs to be fixed somewhere else, too: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2014-02/msg05228.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2014-03/msg00217.html Can/should that be addressed as a follow-up? Or is there a test case that breaks? Regards, Andreas - --=20 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=C3=BC= rnberg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTc6EeAAoJEPou0S0+fgE/EZEP/0Demtm8RD/bDXkgSZYq8H7C 6FuPxjrkx2F/5Cot36VWeyGWB9A4GX3xH8+OJAsWdPyiq2ChOVXub/knlfedvBKP et8Y2uub5FoLV3l8fPOy8CCO97erF4ZpZ28L1Br7jeUO+gR/b0/a0c2fj3V5SeMO vgY6or46nBteVTyYtkAVx4Ne3VddNjiJJrgTASJkIFCFicG1VSQn6+YT89qmEx1i JL8bbh5UNQ/hSFgQzl88mge9Udv3Zjp1zmbochhdazmoG6dHy7g0A7TuDkhIqnLX p4uEzerjJo+24z6rX50CRj4zr6jnZtMdSWJF25+hvRGOz0UsHQ8D5OTZfs7qwBN3 Nkzqx/tMGENcNOnivJ3CGu7GhlBBEK3moK885dlZQ8p7w0+agNQDrR0CSMJlI4ck 8LgxcDNfGgnK948ZZNPTAlqOR7ZJV1dNE1fHulPVNS1xSdk2h48xOn8NNncRAwyq bs+45pxwTjp+L5WLF7XLKsVF1hYy4wi5pBhT0w+xTymYoP5aHKRmIhogvJY1b6Wf 5isZQUHUeGiepZ26smYROrrQhO4Q2ZqHKjp3yUNfhHaP7bdZYh9ykPQQZra+9+K/ lXNmzFIj2L+kdl5R6/pn9h3nZDjrWxGd+IreVASseW0RuLZXDivOtBKZJ6ZBAqQd Dx5lbtVnihJl9KRRxQw2 =3D+B1b -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----