On 26.10.17 22:37, Collin L. Walling wrote:
> On 10/26/2017 04:25 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 26.10.17 20:52, Collin L. Walling wrote:
>>> The sclp console in the s390 bios writes raw data,
>>> leading console emulators (such as virsh console) to
>>> treat a new line ('\n') as just a new line instead
>>> of as a Unix line feed. Because of this, output
>>> appears in a "stair case" pattern.
>>>
>>> Let's print \r\n on every occurrence of a new line
>>> in the string passed to write to amend this issue.
>>>
>>> This is in sync with the guest Linux code in
>>> drivers/s390/char/sclp_vt220.c which also does a line feed
>>> conversion in the console part of the driver.
>>>
>>> This fixes the s390-ccw and s390-netboot output like
>>> $ virsh start test --console
>>> Domain test started
>>> Connected to domain test
>>> Escape character is ^]
>>> Network boot starting...
>>> Using MAC address: 02:01:02:03:04:05
>>>
>>> Requesting information via DHCP: 010
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Collin L. Walling <wall...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>> pc-bios/s390-ccw/sclp.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/sclp.c b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/sclp.c
>>> index 486fce1..f8ad5ae 100644
>>> --- a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/sclp.c
>>> +++ b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/sclp.c
>>> @@ -68,17 +68,27 @@ void sclp_setup(void)
>>> long write(int fd, const void *str, size_t len)
>>> {
>>> WriteEventData *sccb = (void *)_sccb;
>>> + const char *p = str;
>>> + size_t data_len = 0;
>>> + size_t i;
>>> if (fd != 1 && fd != 2) {
>>> return -EIO;
>>> }
>>> - sccb->h.length = sizeof(WriteEventData) + len;
>>> + for (i = len; i > 0; i--) {
>> Where did the bounds check go? If you write(max) before, you were
>> writing max bytes. If you do it now, you end up writing max + n bytes
>> and potentially overflow the array, no?
>>
>>
>> Alex
>
> I wasn't a fan of the code aesthetics and being that the SCCB write buffer
> allows about 4k bytes of data to be written to it, I felt it was safe to
> remove it. It's unlikely we'd be writing that much data in the bios, plus
> that check did not exist prior to this fixup.
>
> Though, reading that out loud, it probably isn't the best idea to sacrifice
> code robustness for code aesthetics.
>
> for (i = len; i > 0; i--) {
> if (data_len > SCCB_DATA_LEN - 1) {
> return -SOME_ERROR
> }
> if (*p == '\n') {
> sccb->data[data_len++] = '\r';
> }
> sccb->data[data_len++] = *p;
> p++;
> }
>
> What do you think?
Normally write() would just write less bytes than it was requested to
write and tell you that in the return value. So how about
for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
if ((data_len + 1) >= SCCB_DATA_LEN) {
/* We would overflow the sccb buffer, abort early */
len = i;
break;
}
if (*p == '\n') {
/* Terminal emulators might need \r\n, so generate it */
sccb->data[data_len++] = '\r';
}
sccb->data[data_len++] = *p;
p++;
}
Alex
