From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:38622) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TTrK6-0008RG-3e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2012 05:44:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TTrJb-0000Kc-8W for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2012 05:44:26 -0400 Received: from mx3-phx2.redhat.com ([209.132.183.24]:58467) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TTrJa-0000K2-Vv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2012 05:43:55 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 05:43:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Alon Levy Message-ID: <797645493.25276499.1351763033457.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <509241F5.8070605@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] hw/qxl: vaildate surface->data List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gerd Hoffmann Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org > On 10/25/12 14:27, Alon Levy wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Alon Levy > > Looks sane at a quick glance. > > But: how far we wanna take this? Add checks to qxl for each and > every > assert() guests can trigger in spice-server? So we end up > sanity-checking everything twice long-term? > > I think instead we'll need a way for spice-server to report back > errors > to qxl. So spice-server would just notify qxl and go on (or stop > processing until reset) instead of aborting. qxl in turn will notify > the guest. Yes I totally agree but never got around to doing it. > > [ The alternative would be to basically move server/red_parse_qxl.c > into the qemu codebase. I don't think we want that because that > would make a bunch of data structures which are spice-server > internal > today (for good reasons) a libspice-server ABI+API. ] > > cheers, > Gerd >