On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:48:02AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
On (Sat) Mar 20 2010 [09:40:50], Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/19/2010 01:58 PM, Amit Shah wrote:
+
+offset = 0;
+for (i = 0; i elem.out_num; i++) {
+memcpy(buf + offset, elem.out_sg[i].iov_base,
+
On (Tue) Mar 23 2010 [17:51:26], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:48:02AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
On (Sat) Mar 20 2010 [09:40:50], Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/19/2010 01:58 PM, Amit Shah wrote:
+
+offset = 0;
+for (i = 0; i elem.out_num; i++) {
+
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 09:45:08PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
On (Tue) Mar 23 2010 [17:51:26], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:48:02AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
On (Sat) Mar 20 2010 [09:40:50], Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/19/2010 01:58 PM, Amit Shah wrote:
+
+
On (Sat) Mar 20 2010 [09:40:50], Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/19/2010 01:58 PM, Amit Shah wrote:
+
+offset = 0;
+for (i = 0; i elem.out_num; i++) {
+memcpy(buf + offset, elem.out_sg[i].iov_base,
+ elem.out_sg[i].iov_len);
+offset +=
On 03/19/2010 01:58 PM, Amit Shah wrote:
Current control messages are small enough to not be split into multiple
buffers but we could run into such a situation in the future or a
malicious guest could cause such a situation.
So handle the entire iov request for control messages.
Also ensure
