> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 11:54 AM > To: Long Li <longli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: KY Srinivasan <kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Haiyang Zhang > <haiyangz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Stephen Hemminger > <sthemmin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Paul Meyer > <Paul.Meyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] hv: kvp: Avoid reading past allocated blocks from > KVP file > > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:39:00PM +0000, Long Li wrote: > > > From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@xxxxxxxxx] > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 11:50 PM > > > To: Long Li <longli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: KY Srinivasan <kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Haiyang Zhang > > > <haiyangz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Stephen Hemminger > > > <sthemmin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Paul Meyer > > > <Paul.Meyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Long Li <longli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] hv: kvp: Avoid reading past allocated blocks > > > from KVP file > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 01:02:35PM -0700, Long Li wrote: > > > > From: Paul Meyer <Paul.Meyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > While reading in more than one block (50) of KVP records, the > > > > allocation goes per block, but the reads used the total number of > > > > allocated records (without resetting the pointer/stream). This > > > > causes the records buffer to overrun when the refresh reads more > > > > than one block over the previous capacity (e.g. reading more than > > > > 100 KVP records whereas the in-memory database was empty before). > > > > > > > > Fix this by reading the correct number of KVP records from file each > time. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul Meyer <Paul.Meyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Long Li <longli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > tools/hv/hv_kvp_daemon.c | 66 > > > > ++++++++---------------------------------------- > > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-) > > > > > > When you version a patch, you always have to say what changed below > > > the > > > --- line, as the documentation states to do... > > > > Sorry it was my bad. Can I resend v2 and indicate what has changed? > > Why wouldn't you? > > But it would be v3 then :) I have sent a "revised v2". Please let me know if it is acceptable. If not I'll send a "v3". > > greg k-h