On 6/11/2013 3:42 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 10.06.13 at 18:43, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 04:52:35PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.06.13 at 22:11, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 03:57:06PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
+ /* N.B.
>>> On 10.06.13 at 18:43, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 04:52:35PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 07.06.13 at 22:11, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
>> >>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 03:57:06PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> >> + /* N.B. 'rp', not 'rc'. */
>>
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 04:52:35PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 07.06.13 at 22:11, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> >>> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 03:57:06PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >> + /* N.B. 'rp', not 'rc'. */
> >> + if (RING_REQUEST_CONS_OVERFLOW(&blk_rings->common, rp))
>>> On 07.06.13 at 22:11, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 03:57:06PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> +/* N.B. 'rp', not 'rc'. */
>> +if (RING_REQUEST_CONS_OVERFLOW(&blk_rings->common, rp)) {
>> +pr_warn(DRV_PFX "Frontend provided bogus ring request
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 03:57:06PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> Check that the ring does not have an insane amount of requests
> (more than there could fit on the ring).
>
> If we detect this case we will stop processing the requests
> and wait until the XenBus disconnects the ring.
>
>
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 12:47:35PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 05.06.13 at 19:35, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> >>> wrote:
> > @@ -230,6 +231,7 @@ static int xen_blkif_map(struct xen_blkif *blkif,
> > unsigned long shared_page,
> > static void xen_blkif_disconnect(struct xen_blkif *blkif)
> >
>>> On 05.06.13 at 19:35, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> @@ -230,6 +231,7 @@ static int xen_blkif_map(struct xen_blkif *blkif,
> unsigned long shared_page,
> static void xen_blkif_disconnect(struct xen_blkif *blkif)
> {
> if (blkif->xenblkd) {
> + wake_up(&blkif->shutdown_wq);
>>> On 05.06.13 at 19:35, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> > Looking at the code, one would expect that the existing check
>>
>> The "expect ..." here doesn't really seem to have a proper
>> termination later in the sentence (or I'm having problems parsing
>> the whole construct), so if I didn't k
zutek Wilk
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 16:54:32 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] xen/blkback: Check for insane amounts of request on the ring.
Check that the ring does not have an insane amount of requests
(more than there could fit on the ring).
If we detect this case we will stop processing the requests
and
>>> On 04.06.13 at 21:57, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> Check that the ring does not have an insane amount of requests
> (more than there could fit on the ring).
>
> If we detect this case we will stop processing the requests
> and wait until the XenBus disconnects the ring.
>
> Looking at the
Check that the ring does not have an insane amount of requests
(more than there could fit on the ring).
If we detect this case we will stop processing the requests
and wait until the XenBus disconnects the ring.
Looking at the code, one would expect that the existing check
RING_REQUEST_CONS_OVERF
11 matches
Mail list logo
