On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 09:29:29AM +0200, Manos Pitsidianakis wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 19:26, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > Hanna Czenczek noticed that the safety of
> > `vq_aio_context[vq->value] = ctx;` with user-defined vq->value inputs is
> > not obvious.
> >
> > The code is structured in v
On 05.02.24 18:26, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
Hanna Czenczek noticed that the safety of
`vq_aio_context[vq->value] = ctx;` with user-defined vq->value inputs is
not obvious.
The code is structured in validate() + apply() steps so input validation
is there, but it happens way earlier and there is no
On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 19:26, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
Hanna Czenczek noticed that the safety of
`vq_aio_context[vq->value] = ctx;` with user-defined vq->value inputs is
not obvious.
The code is structured in validate() + apply() steps so input validation
is there, but it happens way earlier and th
Hanna Czenczek noticed that the safety of
`vq_aio_context[vq->value] = ctx;` with user-defined vq->value inputs is
not obvious.
The code is structured in validate() + apply() steps so input validation
is there, but it happens way earlier and there is nothing that
guarantees apply() can only be ca
