On Tue, 05/31 09:35, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 31.05.2016 um 08:44 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben: > > On Tue, 05/24 10:59, Peter Lieven wrote: > > > at least in the path via virtio-blk the maximum size is not > > > restricted. > > > > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Lieven <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > block/iscsi.c | 7 +++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/block/iscsi.c b/block/iscsi.c > > > index 2ca8e72..e7d5f7b 100644 > > > --- a/block/iscsi.c > > > +++ b/block/iscsi.c > > > @@ -833,6 +833,13 @@ static BlockAIOCB *iscsi_aio_ioctl(BlockDriverState > > > *bs, > > > return &acb->common; > > > } > > > > > > + if (acb->ioh->cmd_len > SCSI_CDB_MAX_SIZE) { > > > + error_report("iSCSI: ioctl error CDB exceeds max size (%d > %d)", > > > + acb->ioh->cmd_len, SCSI_CDB_MAX_SIZE); > > > + qemu_aio_unref(acb); > > > + return NULL; > > > + } > > > + > > > acb->task = malloc(sizeof(struct scsi_task)); > > > if (acb->task == NULL) { > > > error_report("iSCSI: Failed to allocate task for scsi command. > > > %s", > > > > Is it better to invoke the cb and report -EINVAL to the caller? > > You need to implement the BH manually then. The difference is -EINVAL > vs. -ENOTSUP, which don't result in a different guest behaviour. So I > think returning NULL is simpler and therefore better.
Makes sense. Thanks for explaining! Reviewed-by: Fam Zheng <[email protected]>
