On 4/23/19 7:38 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > [adding NBD list] > > On 4/23/19 2:36 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 07:50:22PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: >>> Previously, we were squashing EOVERFLOW into EINVAL; continue to do so >>> at points in the protocol where the client may not be expecting >>> EOVERFLOW. > >> >> The protocol spec is unclear on whether EOVERFLOW can be returned in >> cases other than the DF flag being set. Whether we include this patch >> or not seems to hinge on the interpretation of the protocol spec which >> I'm not really in a position to make. ... > > So the question at hand is whether I should patch the NBD spec to > recommend that a server SHOULD NOT send EOVERFLOW except in response to > NBD_CMD_READ when the NBD_CMD_FLAG_DF bit is set (similar to my proposed > wording that a server SHOULD NOT send ENOTSUP except in response to > NBD_CMD_FLAG_FAST_ZERO). As I have now pushed my proposed changes to the NBD spec to clarify this, I am also pushing the nbdkit patch to handle EOVERFLOW only when NBD_CMD_FLAG_DF is in use. -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature