search for: 0a9f73c

...to do so at points in the protocol where the client may not be expecting EOVERFLOW. Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> --- server/protocol.c | 16 ++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/server/protocol.c b/server/protocol.c index a52bb56..0a9f73c 100644 --- a/server/protocol.c +++ b/server/protocol.c @@ -326,7 +326,7 @@ skip_over_write_buffer (int sock, size_t count) /* Convert a system errno to an NBD_E* error code. */ static int -nbd_errno (int error) +nbd_errno (int error, bool flag_df) { switch (error) { case 0: @@ -349,7 +349...

...client may not be expecting > EOVERFLOW. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> > --- > server/protocol.c | 16 ++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/server/protocol.c b/server/protocol.c > index a52bb56..0a9f73c 100644 > --- a/server/protocol.c > +++ b/server/protocol.c > @@ -326,7 +326,7 @@ skip_over_write_buffer (int sock, size_t count) > > /* Convert a system errno to an NBD_E* error code. */ > static int > -nbd_errno (int error) > +nbd_errno (int error, bool flag_df) > {...

I'm hoping to implement .extents for the nbd plugin; this is a prerequisite. I'm not sure about patch 3 - if we like it, I'll squash it to 2, if we don't, I think we are okay just dropping it. I'm also wondering if we have to worry about malicious plugins that don't populate the entire .pread buffer in an effort to get nbdkit to expose portions of the heap; my patch 7 loses