On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 10:47:04AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > On 2018/11/15 上午12:23, Dima Stepanov wrote: > >On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 10:59:32AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > >>On 2018/11/13 下午11:41, Dima Stepanov wrote: > >>>Hi Jason, > >>> > >>>I know that this patch has been already merged to stable, but i have a > >>>question: > >>> > >>>On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:22:23AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > >>>>There should not be a reason for passing a packet size greater than > >>>>INT_MAX. It's usually a hint of bug somewhere, so ignore packet size > >>>>greater than INT_MAX in qemu_deliver_packet_iov() > >>>> > >>>>CC:qemu-sta...@nongnu.org > >>>>Reported-by: Daniel Shapira<dan...@twistlock.com> > >>>>Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin<m...@redhat.com> > >>>>Signed-off-by: Jason Wang<jasow...@redhat.com> > >>>>--- > >>>> net/net.c | 7 ++++++- > >>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>> > >>>>diff --git a/net/net.c b/net/net.c > >>>>index c66847e..07c194a 100644 > >>>>--- a/net/net.c > >>>>+++ b/net/net.c > >>>>@@ -712,10 +712,15 @@ ssize_t qemu_deliver_packet_iov(NetClientState > >>>>*sender, > >>>> void *opaque) > >>>> { > >>>> NetClientState *nc = opaque; > >>>>+ size_t size = iov_size(iov, iovcnt); > >>>> int ret; > >>>>+ if (size > INT_MAX) { > >>>>+ return size; > >>>Is it okay that the function returns ssize_t (signed), but the type of the > >>>size variable is size_t (unsigned)? For now the top level routine checks > >>>the return value only for 0, but anyway we can return negative value > >>>here instead of positive. What do you think? > >>> > >>>Regards, Dima. > >>> > >>Any non zero value should be ok here. Actually I think because of the > >>conversion from size_t to ssize_t, caller actually see negative value? > >I believe it depends. If long (ssize_t and size_t type) is 8 bytes, then > >the routine can sometimes return positive values and sometimes negative. > >I fully agree that in the current case any non zero value should be > >okay. I just wanted to point on the inconsistency in types and as a > >result a return value. > > > I see, want to post a patch for this? > > Thanks
Yes, will take a look into it and prepare a patch. Thanks, Dima. > > > >Dima. > >>Thanks > >>