On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:46:26 +0100 Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 16 September 2016 at 15:39, Greg Kurz <gr...@kaod.org> wrote: > > 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 ? > > That's up to you, as long as you don't break "make check". > You probably want to investigate at least enough to be happy that > this problem is a bug in the test code, not the feature itself. > It is the test code actually: 9P uses little-endian ordering :) I'll post an updated version which doesn't break "make check" on both BE and LE hosts, and re-send a pull request. Cheers. -- Greg > thanks > -- PMM
