On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:25:42 +0100 Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 16 September 2016 at 14:09, Greg Kurz <gr...@kaod.org> wrote: > > The following changes since commit 5f473241ac595452ae0638dc63e7af2a2294f5ec: > > > > Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/bonzini/tags/for-upstream' into > > staging (2016-09-15 18:12:40 +0100) > > > > are available in the git repository at: > > > > https://github.com/gkurz/qemu.git tags/for-upstream > > > > for you to fetch changes up to 5c574f1bf92cfaf4aae6cbb66b79066c654920e1: > > > > 9pfs: fix potential segfault during walk (2016-09-16 12:16:29 +0200) > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > This pull request contains: > > - a fix for a regression introduced in 2.7 > > - basic functional testing for virtio-9p > > - some code cleanups for 9pfs > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Fails test on ppc64be: > > /i386/virtio/9p/pci/basic/transaction: ** > ERROR:/home/pm215/qemu/tests/virtio-9p-test.c:167:pci_basic_transaction: > assertion failed (hdr.size > < (uint32_t) P9_MAX_SIZE): (603979776 < 8192) > FAIL > GTester: last random seed: R02S0ce79f32586824bc8cbd5461f009c62a > (pid=33294) > > Looks like an endianness bug. > Ok, I'll look into it... but the important part in this pull request is the "9pfs: fix potential segfault during walk" patch. It fixes a regression introduced in 2.7 by the 9P security fixes. And IIUC, Michael Roth is about to release 2.6.1.1 with these fixes and the regression... Should I send a new pull request without the qtest patches ? Or with the regression fix only ? Please advise. Thanks. -- Greg > thanks > -- PMM