Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
To:     Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
Cc:     Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
        GUO Zihua <guozihua@huawei.com>,
        v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] 9p/xen: check logical size for buffer size
Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2022 11:46:13 +0100
Message-ID: <2955638.xlpIv7zoH0@silver>
In-Reply-To: <Y3waS1oq4BmitGLT@codewreck.org>
References: <20221118135542.63400-1-asmadeus@codewreck.org> <37091478.n1eaNAWdo1@silver>
 <Y3waS1oq4BmitGLT@codewreck.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 1:39:39 AM CET Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 05:35:56PM +0100:
> > Looks good (except of s/rreq/req/ mentioned by Stefano already).
> 
> Thanks for the review (I've taken this as a 'reviewed-by' under the
> assumption of that fix, sorry for being a bit aggressive at collecting
> these -- I'd rather overcredit work being done than the other way around)

Yes, you can add my RB of course!

> I'll send this and the three other commits in my 9p-next branch to Linus
> tomorrow around this time:
> https://github.com/martinetd/linux/commits/9p-next
> 
> 
> > >  		memcpy(&req->rc, &h, sizeof(h));
> > 
> > Is that really OK?
> > 
> > 1. `h` is of type xen_9pfs_header and declared as packed, whereas `rc` is 
of 
> >    type p9_fcall not declared as packed.
> > 
> > 2. Probably a bit dangerous to assume the layout of xen_9pfs_header being 
in
> >    sync with the starting layout of p9_fcall without any compile-time 
> >    assertion?
> 
> I've done this in a follow up that will be sent to Linus later as per
> Stefano's suggestion.

Great, one patch less to send, thanks! :)