On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 11:34:46AM -0700, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Alistair Francis >> <alistair.fran...@xilinx.com> wrote: >> > It is possible for the guest to set an invalid block >> > size which is larger then the fifo_buffer[] array. This >> > could cause a buffer overflow. >> > >> > To avoid this limit the maximum size of the blksize variable. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@xilinx.com> >> > Suggested-by: Igor Mitsyanko <i.mitsya...@gmail.com> >> > Reported-by: Intel Security ATR <sec...@intel.com> >> > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> >> >> Reviewed-by: Peter Crosthwaite <crosthwaite.pe...@gmail.com> >> >> With Pavan's patches and now this, the SD patches are starting to pile >> up on list. What queue do they target? target-arm (as lead/major user) >> or something block-related? > > I can pick them up for now in my block pull requests. Note that I'm not > an SD expert so I can't review/maintain the code.
Thanks :) Applying them should be enough Alistair > > Stefan >
