On 11/08/2011 02:39 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 16:55:17 +1100, David Gibson<da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
wrote:
From: Timothy Rule<tr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
The 9P spec states that for the stat message the "stat[n]" structure shall be
encoded at offset 7 in the 9P message (see ยง13.9 message Rstat).
The existing code is encoding a 2 byte value (hard coded 0 value) at
offset 7 of the 9P message, and then follows with the "stat[n]" structure
at offset 9 of the 9P message.
This patch removes the encoding of the 2 byte value which has the effect
of moving the "stat[n]" structure from offset 9 to offset 7 in the 9P
message Rstat.
Signed-off-by: Timothy Rule<tr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: David Gibson<da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
---
hw/9pfs/virtio-9p.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/9pfs/virtio-9p.c b/hw/9pfs/virtio-9p.c
index 01cf337..35d8851 100644
--- a/hw/9pfs/virtio-9p.c
+++ b/hw/9pfs/virtio-9p.c
@@ -1279,7 +1279,7 @@ static void v9fs_stat(void *opaque)
if (err< 0) {
goto out;
}
- offset += pdu_marshal(pdu, offset, "wS", 0,&v9stat);
+ offset += pdu_marshal(pdu, offset, "S",&v9stat);
err = offset;
trace_v9fs_stat_return(pdu->tag, pdu->id, v9stat.mode,
v9stat.atime, v9stat.mtime, v9stat.length);
The reason for that "w" is explained in the 9p2000 protocol RFC. Towards
the end of "wstat" message para we have
BUGS
To make the contents of a directory, such as returned by read(5),
easy to parse, each directory entry begins with a size field. For
consistency, the entries in Twstat and Rstat messages also contain
their size, which means the size appears twice. For example, the
Rstat message is formatted as ``(4+1+2+2+n)[4] Rstat tag[2] n[2]
(n-2)[2] type[2] dev[4]...,'' where n is the value returned by
convD2M.
Also on the client side we do in p9_client_stat
err = p9pdu_readf(req->rc, clnt->proto_version, "wS",&ignored, ret);
if (err) {
So the above change will break existing client.
Any reason why you need to make the above change ?
-aneesh
It would be fine for us to implement our solution that way. I apologise
for the inconvenience, I wrote this particular function against the
9P2000.u specification which does not mention the Bug.
Tim.
