On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 12:28:01 -0600
Eric Blake wrote:
> On 03/03/2017 12:15 PM, Greg Kurz wrote:
>
> >
> > O_PATH | O_NOFOLLOW is a special case as described in the last paragraph
> > of O_PATH in the man page:
> >
> > If pathname is a symbolic link and the O_NOFOLLOW flag is
>
On 03/03/2017 12:15 PM, Greg Kurz wrote:
>
> O_PATH | O_NOFOLLOW is a special case as described in the last paragraph
> of O_PATH in the man page:
>
> If pathname is a symbolic link and the O_NOFOLLOW flag is also
> specified, then the call returns a file descriptor
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 12:11:36 -0600
Eric Blake wrote:
> On 03/03/2017 10:43 AM, Greg Kurz wrote:
>
> >>> +#ifndef O_PATH
> >>> +#define O_PATH 0
> >>> +#endif
> >>
> >> Isn't the use of O_PATH required in order to fix the recent
> >> security vulnerability in 9p ? If so, then defining it
On 03/03/2017 10:43 AM, Greg Kurz wrote:
>>> +#ifndef O_PATH
>>> +#define O_PATH 0
>>> +#endif
>>
>> Isn't the use of O_PATH required in order to fix the recent
>> security vulnerability in 9p ? If so, then defining it to
>> 0 means the QEMU is silently becoming vulnerable once again
>> whi
On 03/03/2017 10:40 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Isn't the use of O_PATH required in order to fix the recent
>> security vulnerability in 9p ? If so, then defining it to
>> 0 means the QEMU is silently becoming vulnerable once again
>> which I don't think is a good idea.
>
> My understanding is that
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 16:21:28 +
"Daniel P. Berrange" wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 10:55:01AM -0500, G 3 wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:44 AM, Greg Kurz wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 10:28:00 -0500
> > > G 3 wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:59 AM, qemu-devel-requ
On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 10:40:13AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 03/03/2017 10:21 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
> >>
> >> +#ifndef O_PATH
> >> +#define O_PATH 0
> >> +#endif
> >
> > Isn't the use of O_PATH required in order to fix the recent
> > security vulnerability in 9p ? If so, then d
On 03/03/2017 10:21 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I remember years ago something like O_PATH was not defined on Mac OS
X,
so the solution was to define the constant as zero. Something like
this:
#ifndef O_PATH
#define O_PATH 0
#endif
Maybe this
On Mar 3, 2017, at 11:21 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 10:55:01AM -0500, G 3 wrote:
On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:44 AM, Greg Kurz wrote:
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 10:28:00 -0500
G 3 wrote:
On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:59 AM, qemu-devel-requ...@nongnu.org wrote:
On 02/03/17 17:40, Dani
On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 10:55:01AM -0500, G 3 wrote:
>
> On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:44 AM, Greg Kurz wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 10:28:00 -0500
> > G 3 wrote:
> >
> > > On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:59 AM, qemu-devel-requ...@nongnu.org wrote:
> > > > On 02/03/17 17:40, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > >
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 15:58:13 +
Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 3 March 2017 at 15:55, G 3 wrote:
> > Here is the patch. I think we should let Mark or some else test it to see if
> > it does fix the problem before a real patch is submitted.
> >
> > ---
> > hw/9pfs/9p-util.h | 4
> > 1 file cha
On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:58 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 3 March 2017 at 15:55, G 3 wrote:
Here is the patch. I think we should let Mark or some else test it
to see if
it does fix the problem before a real patch is submitted.
---
hw/9pfs/9p-util.h | 4
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
W
On 3 March 2017 at 15:55, G 3 wrote:
> Here is the patch. I think we should let Mark or some else test it to see if
> it does fix the problem before a real patch is submitted.
>
> ---
> hw/9pfs/9p-util.h | 4
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
We can't take any patch without a Signed-off-by:
On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:44 AM, Greg Kurz wrote:
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 10:28:00 -0500
G 3 wrote:
On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:59 AM, qemu-devel-requ...@nongnu.org wrote:
On 02/03/17 17:40, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 05:28:24PM +, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
Does anyone else see
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 10:28:00 -0500
G 3 wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:59 AM, qemu-devel-requ...@nongnu.org wrote:
> > On 02/03/17 17:40, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 05:28:24PM +, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> >>> Does anyone else see the following error when tryin
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 18:10:29 +
Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 2 March 2017 at 17:40, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 05:28:24PM +, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> >> Build platform is Debian Wheezy on an x86_64 host.
> >
> > IIUC, O_PATH was introduced in glibc 2.14 and Whe
On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:59 AM, qemu-devel-requ...@nongnu.org wrote:
On 02/03/17 17:40, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 05:28:24PM +, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
Does anyone else see the following error when trying to build git
master?
cc -I/home/build/src/qemu/git/qemu/hw/9p
On 02/03/17 17:40, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 05:28:24PM +, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
>> Does anyone else see the following error when trying to build git master?
>>
>> cc -I/home/build/src/qemu/git/qemu/hw/9pfs -Ihw/9pfs
>> -I/home/build/src/qemu/git/qemu/tcg
>> -I/home
On Mar 2, 2017, at 1:26 PM, qemu-devel-requ...@nongnu.org wrote:
>
> Does anyone else see the following error when trying to build git master?
>
> cc -I/home/build/src/qemu/git/qemu/hw/9pfs -Ihw/9pfs
> -I/home/build/src/qemu/git/qemu/tcg
> -I/home/build/src/qemu/git/qemu/tcg/i386
> -I/home/build
On 2 March 2017 at 17:40, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 05:28:24PM +, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
>> Build platform is Debian Wheezy on an x86_64 host.
>
> IIUC, O_PATH was introduced in glibc 2.14 and Wheezy only has 2.13.
>
> So unless we want to make this 9pfs code a confi
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 05:28:24PM +, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> Does anyone else see the following error when trying to build git master?
>
> cc -I/home/build/src/qemu/git/qemu/hw/9pfs -Ihw/9pfs
> -I/home/build/src/qemu/git/qemu/tcg
> -I/home/build/src/qemu/git/qemu/tcg/i386
> -I/home/build/sr
21 matches
Mail list logo
