On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 02:11:10PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 09:35:49AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 06:00:20PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > > On 07/12/2010 05:42 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > >On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 04:07:21PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > > >>On 07/12/2010 12:48 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > >>>We do range check for size, and get size as buffer, > > > >>>but copy size + 4 bytes (4 is for FCS). > > > >>>Let's copy size bytes but put size + 4 in length. > > > >>> > > > >>>Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin<m...@redhat.com> > > > >>I think I'd feel slightly better if we zero'd out the FCS before > > > >>writing it to the guest. It is potentially a data leak. > > > >> > > > >>Regards, > > > >> > > > >>Anthony Liguori > > > >I am guessing there's no chance guest actually looks > > > >at this data, otherwise it won't match and we'd get errors, right? > > > > > > That's my assumption too. Although I believe there are some known > > > issues with e1000 and certain versions of Windows and the Microsoft > > > built-in driver. Maybe this is why those drivers don't work and the > > > Intel drivers do? > > > > > At least one known issue with Windows drivers to me is that they > > sometimes (on resume from S4 at least) enable interrupts before setup > > irq routing, so if interrupt is generated in the wrong time it hangs the > > guest. I guess it works on real HW for them because line speed > > negotiation takes non-zero time. > > I guess we could work around this. Is there a bz? > BZ where? We do not support e1000 with Windows guests.
-- Gleb.