On 04/12/2011 02:05 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:46:55AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/11/2011 07:36 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
>>>>> @@ -3097,6 +3107,11 @@ qemuDomainSaveImageOpen(struct qemud_dri
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> if (header.version> QEMUD_SAVE_VERSION) {
>>>>> + /* convert endianess and try again */
>>>>> + bswap_header(&header);
>>>>> + }
>>>> Hum, isn't there a more reliable way to detect the change of
>>>> endianness ? That's a bit fishy IMHO :-)
>>> The problem is that the header should not have been written in a
>>> hosts' native format. So what can go wrong? QEMUD_SAVE_VERSION is
>>> '2'. Either we find 1 or 2 here and go ahead and accept it
'as-is'.
>>> Otherwise anything bigger than 3 is not accepted and swapped. 3 then
>>> becomes 0x03 00 00 00 and is discarded. 0x 02 00 00 00 would be
>>> swapped to '2' and accepted.
>> yeah, I understand, okay,
> Should we be writing the header in a particular byte order, regardless
> of host endianness? Or does that require bumping the header version to
> 3 anyways?
The thing I'm worried about is that by bumping older versions won't
be able to restore the new dumps, and that could be a serious issue on
shared storage. We are not introducing a new feature, so I thin we need
to preserve forward compatibility. The patch as is is minimal but
achieves it.
Do you want to accept the patch ?
Stefan