On 11.03.2014 11:16, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 11.03.2014 um 00:16 hat Laszlo Ersek geschrieben:
On 03/10/14 23:44, Max Reitz wrote:
Before dereferencing bs->drv for a call to its member bdrv_co_readv(),
copy_sectors() should check whether that pointer is indeed valid, since
it may have been set to
On 11.03.2014 15:04, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 11/03/2014 11:16, Kevin Wolf ha scritto:
Am 11.03.2014 um 00:16 hat Laszlo Ersek geschrieben:
On 03/10/14 23:44, Max Reitz wrote:
Before dereferencing bs->drv for a call to its member bdrv_co_readv(),
copy_sectors() should check whether that pointer
Il 11/03/2014 11:16, Kevin Wolf ha scritto:
Am 11.03.2014 um 00:16 hat Laszlo Ersek geschrieben:
On 03/10/14 23:44, Max Reitz wrote:
Before dereferencing bs->drv for a call to its member bdrv_co_readv(),
copy_sectors() should check whether that pointer is indeed valid, since
it may have been se
Am 11.03.2014 um 00:16 hat Laszlo Ersek geschrieben:
> On 03/10/14 23:44, Max Reitz wrote:
> > Before dereferencing bs->drv for a call to its member bdrv_co_readv(),
> > copy_sectors() should check whether that pointer is indeed valid, since
> > it may have been set to NULL by e.g. a concurrent wri
On 03/10/14 23:44, Max Reitz wrote:
> Before dereferencing bs->drv for a call to its member bdrv_co_readv(),
> copy_sectors() should check whether that pointer is indeed valid, since
> it may have been set to NULL by e.g. a concurrent write triggering the
> corruption prevention mechanism.
>
> Sig
Before dereferencing bs->drv for a call to its member bdrv_co_readv(),
copy_sectors() should check whether that pointer is indeed valid, since
it may have been set to NULL by e.g. a concurrent write triggering the
corruption prevention mechanism.
Signed-off-by: Max Reitz
---
To be precise, this s
