Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block: Fix max nb_sectors in bdrv_make_zero

2014-11-13 Thread Stefan Hajnoczi
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 03:07:44PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: > In bdrv_rw_co we report -EINVAL for nb_sectors > INT_MAX / > BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE, so a caller shouldn't exceed it. > > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng > --- > block.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Thanks, applied t

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block: Fix max nb_sectors in bdrv_make_zero

2014-11-10 Thread Markus Armbruster
Fam Zheng writes: > On Mon, 11/10 09:33, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Fam Zheng writes: >> >> > In bdrv_rw_co we report -EINVAL for nb_sectors > INT_MAX / >> > BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE, so a caller shouldn't exceed it. > > I noticed this while testing unmap / zero write with scsi_debug: > > # dd if=/dev

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block: Fix max nb_sectors in bdrv_make_zero

2014-11-10 Thread Fam Zheng
On Mon, 11/10 09:33, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Fam Zheng writes: > > > In bdrv_rw_co we report -EINVAL for nb_sectors > INT_MAX / > > BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE, so a caller shouldn't exceed it. I noticed this while testing unmap / zero write with scsi_debug: # dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/a bs=1M count=32 #

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block: Fix max nb_sectors in bdrv_make_zero

2014-11-10 Thread Markus Armbruster
Fam Zheng writes: > In bdrv_rw_co we report -EINVAL for nb_sectors > INT_MAX / > BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE, so a caller shouldn't exceed it. It's not obvious to me why we do that there. iovec member iov_len is size_t, not int. > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng > --- > block.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 i

[Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block: Fix max nb_sectors in bdrv_make_zero

2014-11-09 Thread Fam Zheng
In bdrv_rw_co we report -EINVAL for nb_sectors > INT_MAX / BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE, so a caller shouldn't exceed it. Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng --- block.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/block.c b/block.c index dacd881..5513379 100644 --- a/block.c +++ b/block.c @