Am 14.11.2018 um 08:10 hat Alberto Garcia geschrieben: > On Tue 13 Nov 2018 06:06:54 PM CET, Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote: > > >> Refcount table entries have a field to store the offset of the > >> refcount block. The rest of the bits of the entry are currently > >> reserved. > >> > >> The offset is always taken from the entry using REFT_OFFSET_MASK to > >> ensure that we only use the bits that belong to that field. > >> > >> While that mask is used every time we read from the refcount table, it > >> is never used when we write to it. Due to the other constraints of the > >> qcow2 format QEMU can never produce refcount block offsets that don't > >> fit in that field so any such offset when allocating a refcount block > >> would indicate a bug in QEMU.
Missing S-o-b. > >> block/qcow2-refcount.c | 3 +++ > >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > >> > > > > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> > > Yes, for 3.1, shall I resend it with the updated subject message? Honestly, I don't see why an additional assertion should qualify as a fix? If it changes the behaviour, it's a bug. You wouldn't have to resend for the updated subject message, but you do for the missing S-o-b. Kevin
