Eric Blake wrote: > According to Jim Meyering on 3/3/2010 2:29 AM: >>> ACK, looks fine ! >> >> I pushed this, and then (sorry I missed it the first time) >> noticed that we'd rather avoid that new use of errno. >> errno is not defined for a shorter-than-expected read, so including >> strerror(errno) in the diagnostic would be misleading. > > Good point. Were you planning on the followup patch for this, or do I > need to pick up the slack? I figured you'd do it while addressing the malicious input problem a few lines below. -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list