On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 04:41:31PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 10:30:13AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 02:36:43PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > This filter doesn't call the next_open function in the non-TLS case,
> > and therefore it never opens the plugin. This leaves the internal
> > state of nbdkit a bit strange. There is no plugin context allocated,
> > and the last filter in the chain has a context c_next pointer of NULL.
> >
> > This works, provided we intercept every possible callback, check the
> > non-TLS case, and prevent it from calling the next function (because
> > it would dereference the NULL c_next).
> >
> > To avoid a crash in backend_block_size we must therefore provide a
> > .block_size callback in this filter.
> > ---
> > filters/tls-fallback/tls-fallback.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>
> ACK.
>
> Would you like to squash this in, and/or have me commit this separately?
I was actually thinking about squashing my patches 1-4 together.
They're all really the same change, but I kept them separate for ease
of review. What do you think?
Seems reasonable (I'll confirm it again when I get through reviewing 4).
But I think this patch:
> commit 8c00ca2fe418aeecf0818feed227a72e76d87f18
> Author: Eric Blake <eblake(a)redhat.com>
> Date: Thu Feb 17 10:24:50 2022 -0600
>
> tls-fallback: Enhance comments about required callbacks
... would stay separate, and you can push it before or after.
Before - it is now commit 8c00ca2f ;)
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization:
qemu.org |
libvirt.org