Am 24.08.2014 um 18:30 schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > Il 22/08/2014 10:42, Kevin Wolf ha scritto: >>> Unfortunately, I missed that one. The zeroblock is typicalls 512 Byte or 4K >>> depending >>> on the blocksize. >> I don't remember the details, but I think when I went through all >> drivers, I couldn't convince myself that a reasonable block size is >> enforced somewhere. So I just went ahead and converted the call to be on >> the safe side. It can never hurt anyway. > Yeah, a malicious iSCSI target could have unreasonable block sizes. Maybe we should just allow 512b or 4kb blocksize and refuse all other?
Peter > > This means the minimum transfer size for SCSI devices could be on the > order of half a GiB, and that could cause other unbounded allocations in > the read-modify-write code. Are those protected too? > > Paolo
