Michael Tokarev writes:
> I haven't noticed this email - which is almost a month old now - until today.
> So replying now...
>
> 30.07.2014 21:43, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" writes:
>>
>>> Michael Tokarev writes:
>>>
Apparently the the mapped-* security models results i
I haven't noticed this email - which is almost a month old now - until today.
So replying now...
30.07.2014 21:43, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" writes:
>
>> Michael Tokarev writes:
>>
>>> Apparently the the mapped-* security models results in a raw bytes
>>> being dumped to host
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" writes:
> Michael Tokarev writes:
>
>> Apparently the the mapped-* security models results in a raw bytes
>> being dumped to host without any architecture normalization (in
>> host byte order). This may even lead to security issues in guest
>> when the same files are served f
Michael Tokarev writes:
> Apparently the the mapped-* security models results in a raw bytes
> being dumped to host without any architecture normalization (in
> host byte order). This may even lead to security issues in guest
> when the same files are served from another host for example.
>
> Th
Apparently the the mapped-* security models results in a raw bytes
being dumped to host without any architecture normalization (in
host byte order). This may even lead to security issues in guest
when the same files are served from another host for example.
This bug has been initially submitted a
