On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 12:12:18PM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> Stefano Stabellini 06/23/17 8:43 PM >>>
> > >On Fri, 23 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >> >>> On 22.06.17 at 20:52, wrote:
> > >> > I am happy to write the code and/or the commi
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> Stefano Stabellini 06/23/17 8:43 PM >>>
> >On Fri, 23 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 22.06.17 at 20:52, wrote:
> >> > I am happy to write the code and/or the commit message. Would a simple
> >> > cast like below work to fix the security issu
>>> Stefano Stabellini 06/23/17 8:43 PM >>>
>On Fri, 23 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 22.06.17 at 20:52, wrote:
>> > I am happy to write the code and/or the commit message. Would a simple
>> > cast like below work to fix the security issue?
>>
>> I suppose so, but you do realize that th
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 22.06.17 at 20:52, wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 21.06.17 at 20:46, wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >> >>> On 20.06.17 at 23:48, wrote:
> >> >> > On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>>> On 22.06.17 at 20:52, wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 21.06.17 at 20:46, wrote:
>> > On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 20.06.17 at 23:48, wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >> @@ -36,13 +33,7 @@ struct blkif_x86_32_reque
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 21.06.17 at 20:46, wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 20.06.17 at 23:48, wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >> @@ -36,13 +33,7 @@ struct blkif_x86_32_request_discard {
> >> >> blkif_sector_t
>>> On 21.06.17 at 20:46, wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 20.06.17 at 23:48, wrote:
>> > On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> @@ -36,13 +33,7 @@ struct blkif_x86_32_request_discard {
>> >> blkif_sector_t sector_number;/* start sector idx on disk (r/w
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 20.06.17 at 23:48, wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> @@ -36,13 +33,7 @@ struct blkif_x86_32_request_discard {
> >> blkif_sector_t sector_number;/* start sector idx on disk (r/w
> >> only) */
> >> uint64_t
>>> On 20.06.17 at 23:48, wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> @@ -36,13 +33,7 @@ struct blkif_x86_32_request_discard {
>> blkif_sector_t sector_number;/* start sector idx on disk (r/w only)
>> */
>> uint64_t nr_sectors; /* # of contiguous sectors to disc
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Rather than constructing a local structure instance on the stack, fill
> the fields directly on the shared ring, just like other (Linux)
> backends do. Build on the fact that all response structure flavors are
> actually identical (the old code did make thi
Rather than constructing a local structure instance on the stack, fill
the fields directly on the shared ring, just like other (Linux)
backends do. Build on the fact that all response structure flavors are
actually identical (the old code did make this assumption too).
This is XSA-216.
Reported b
11 matches
Mail list logo