[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] s390-ccw: print carriage return with new lines
From: |
Christian Borntraeger |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] s390-ccw: print carriage return with new lines |
Date: |
Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:02:18 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 |
On 10/20/2017 12:41 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
[...]
>>> @@ -76,17 +76,28 @@ static int _strlen(const char *str)
>>> long write(int fd, const void *str, size_t len)
>>> {
>>> WriteEventData *sccb = (void *)_sccb;
>>> + const char *p;
>>> + size_t data_len = 0;
>>>
>>> if (fd != 1 && fd != 2) {
>>> return -EIO;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - sccb->h.length = sizeof(WriteEventData) + len;
>>> + for (p = str; *p; ++p) {
>>> + if (data_len > SCCB_DATA_LEN - 1) {
>>> + return -EFBIG;
>>> + }
>>> + if (*p == '\n') {
>>> + sccb->data[data_len++] = '\r';
>>> + }
>>> + sccb->data[data_len++] = *p;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + sccb->h.length = sizeof(WriteEventData) + data_len;
>>
>> This subtly changes the semantics of the write() function from an
>> explicitly passed in "len" argument to NULL termination determined
>> sizing, no?
>>
>> In that case, wouldn't it make sense to either remove the len argument
>> altogether or keep respecting it?
>
> Yes, well spotted.
> The write function is used in other code (SLOF related network boot),
> so we should change it to respect the length, I think.
Something like this on top?
--- a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/sclp.c
+++ b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/sclp.c
@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ long write(int fd, const void *str, size_t len)
return -EIO;
}
- for (p = str; *p; ++p) {
+ for (p = str; len ; ++p, len--) {
if (data_len > SCCB_DATA_LEN - 1) {
return -EFBIG;
}
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] s390-ccw: print carriage return with new lines, Cornelia Huck, 2017/10/20
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] s390-ccw: print carriage return with new lines, Halil Pasic, 2017/10/20