Hi,
On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 10:43:43AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> >
> > It's safer and more consistent than assuming the caller has done the
> > checks already.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Francois Gouget <fgouget@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > src/channel-display.c | 9 ++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/channel-display.c b/src/channel-display.c
> > index cf9c583..b4c9ec0 100644
> > --- a/src/channel-display.c
> > +++ b/src/channel-display.c
> > @@ -1222,9 +1222,16 @@ void stream_display_frame(display_stream *st,
> > SpiceMsgIn *frame_msg,
> > static void display_update_stream_report(SpiceDisplayChannel *channel,
> > uint32_t stream_id,
> > uint32_t frame_time, int32_t
> > latency)
> > {
> > - display_stream *st = channel->priv->streams[stream_id];
> > + SpiceDisplayChannelPrivate *c = channel->priv;
> > + display_stream *st;
> > guint64 now;
> >
> > + g_return_if_fail(c != NULL);
> > + g_return_if_fail(c->streams != NULL);
>
> I think these means a bug in the client, I would abort.
I think we use that rationale on the server but not in the client.
I think it make sense (to abort) but it was not discussed till now so
the default has been logging the critical message and keep going.
>
> > + g_return_if_fail(c->nstreams > stream_id);
>
> This could just mean a bad server or a MITM attack, yes
> a warning is enough.
>
> > +
> > + st = channel->priv->streams[stream_id];
> > +
> > if (!st->report_is_active) {
> > return;
> > }
>
> Frediano
> _______________________________________________
> Spice-devel mailing list
> Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
_______________________________________________
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel