On 01/31/2017 07:54 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
>>> Another thing: I'm not quite positive whether qcow2_cluster_zeroize()
>>> can actually handle a byte count greater than INT_MAX. If you could pass
>>> such a number to it, the multiplication "ret * s->cluster_size" might
>>> overflow. It's only caller q
On 30.01.2017 17:52, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 01/28/2017 02:21 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 20.12.2016 20:15, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> Passing a byte offset, but sector count, when we ultimately
>>> want to operate on cluster granularity, is madness. Clean up
>>> the interfaces to take both offset and co
On 01/28/2017 02:21 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 20.12.2016 20:15, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Passing a byte offset, but sector count, when we ultimately
>> want to operate on cluster granularity, is madness. Clean up
>> the interfaces to take both offset and count as bytes, while
>> still keeping the asse
On 20.12.2016 20:15, Eric Blake wrote:
> Passing a byte offset, but sector count, when we ultimately
> want to operate on cluster granularity, is madness. Clean up
> the interfaces to take both offset and count as bytes, while
> still keeping the assertion added previously that the caller
> must a
Passing a byte offset, but sector count, when we ultimately
want to operate on cluster granularity, is madness. Clean up
the interfaces to take both offset and count as bytes, while
still keeping the assertion added previously that the caller
must align the values to a cluster. Then rename things
