Hello Jason, +-- On Mon, 5 Dec 2016, Jason Wang wrote --+ | > diff --git a/hw/net/virtio-net.c b/hw/net/virtio-net.c | > index 01f1351..cb5b3dc 100644 | > --- a/hw/net/virtio-net.c | > +++ b/hw/net/virtio-net.c | > @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ static int vq2q(int queue_index) | > static void virtio_net_get_config(VirtIODevice *vdev, uint8_t *config) | > { | > VirtIONet *n = VIRTIO_NET(vdev); | > - struct virtio_net_config netcfg; | > + struct virtio_net_config netcfg = {}; | > | > virtio_stw_p(vdev, &netcfg.status, n->status); | > virtio_stw_p(vdev, &netcfg.max_virtqueue_pairs, n->max_queues); | | Good catch but since mtu patch wasn't accepted so mtu were in fact not exposed | to guest.
'mtu' appears to have been added by commit 'dbdfea9226c9d0bdd', could you pleae confirm? | (FYI, you can have a look at Maxime patch, he did a stw_p here()). + virtio_stw_p(vdev, &netcfg.mtu, n->mtu); + Yes, but this isn't accepted yet, is it? Thank you. -- Prasad J Pandit / Red Hat Product Security Team 47AF CE69 3A90 54AA 9045 1053 DD13 3D32 FE5B 041F