[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block: Fix qemu crash when using scsi-block

From: Deepa Srinivasan
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block: Fix qemu crash when using scsi-block
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 10:45:22 -0800

> On Nov 23, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Kevin Wolf <address@hidden> wrote:
> Am 23.11.2017 um 18:05 hat Deepa Srinivasan geschrieben:
>> blk_aio_prwv() now takes a void pointer and the coroutine functions
>> have been modified to cast it into QEMUIOVector if needed. It does not
>> use an union in BlkRwCo since this leads to code - blk_aio_prwv()
>> would have to write to the void pointer member, but coroutines would
>> sometimes read the QEMUIOVector member. Paolo also suggested not using
>> a union.
> I don't particularly like void pointers, but I guess it's fair enough.

Agreed, but if a union were to hold QEMUIOVector* and void* in BlkRwCo, 
blk_aio_prwv() would always write to void* but some coroutine functions would 
read from the QEMUIOVector* member. Keeping it as a void pointer is a safer 

>> Note that a similar issue exists in
>> blk_ioctl()/blk_ioctl_entry()/blk_prw() where blk_prw() always creates
>> the QEMUIOVector even if blk_ioctl()/blk_ioctl_entry() does not need a
>> QEMUIOVector. This will need to be fixed separately to keep it
>> consistent with the AIO path.
> I don't think there is an actual problem in the blk_ioctl() path because
> the iov on the stack stays valid as long as the coroutine runs. AIO is
> different because it returns before the coroutine has terminated.

The problem in blk_ioctl() is not a crash, because blk_prwv() waits for the 
coroutine completion, as you say.

The issue is that it unnecessarily creates a QEMUIOVector for the ioctl case. I 
was saying, if this is to be kept consistent with the AIO patch, then it could 
be done in a separate patch.

> Kevin

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]