Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] hw/qxl: vaildate surface->data

[Alon Levy]

> On 10/25/12 14:27, Alon Levy wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Alon Levy <address@hidden>
> 
> Looks sane at a quick glance.
> 
> But: how far we wanna take this?  Add checks to qxl for each and
> every
> assert() guests can trigger in spice-server?  So we end up
> sanity-checking everything twice long-term?
> 
> I think instead we'll need a way for spice-server to report back
> errors
> to qxl.  So spice-server would just notify qxl and go on (or stop
> processing until reset) instead of aborting.  qxl in turn will notify
> the guest.

Yes I totally agree but never got around to doing it.

> 
> [ The alternative would be to basically move server/red_parse_qxl.c
>   into the qemu codebase.  I don't think we want that because that
>   would make a bunch of data structures which are spice-server
>   internal
>   today (for good reasons) a libspice-server ABI+API. ]
> 
> cheers,
>   Gerd
>