Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] 9pfs: fix 'Twalk' protocol violation

[Christian Schoenebeck]

On Dienstag, 15. März 2022 11:10:25 CEST Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> Currently the implementation of 'Twalk' does not behave exactly as specified
> by the 9p2000 protocol specification. Actual fix is patch 5; see the
> description of that patch for details of what this overall fix and series
> is about.
> 
> PREREQUISITES
> =============
> 
> This series requires the following additional patch to work correctly:
> https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/E1nTpyU-0000yR-9o@lizzy.crudebyte.com/
> 
> OVERVIEW OF PATCHES
> ===================
> 
> Patch 4 is a preparatory (pure) refactoring change to make actual 'Twalk'
> fix patch 5 better readable.
> 
> All the other patches are just additional test cases for guarding 'Twalk'
> behaviour.
> 
> v3 -> v4:
> 
>   * QID returned by Twalk request in fs_walk_2nd_nonexistent() test should
> NOT be identical to root node's QID. [patch 7]
> 
>   * Fix actual 'fid unaffected' check in fs_walk_2nd_nonexistent() test by
>     sending a subsequent 'Tgetattr' request. [patch 7]
> 
> Christian Schoenebeck (7):
>   tests/9pfs: walk to non-existent dir
>   tests/9pfs: Twalk with nwname=0
>   tests/9pfs: compare QIDs in fs_walk_none() test
>   9pfs: refactor 'name_idx' -> 'nwalked' in v9fs_walk()
>   9pfs: fix 'Twalk' to only send error if no component walked
>   tests/9pfs: guard recent 'Twalk' behaviour fix
>   tests/9pfs: check fid being unaffected in fs_walk_2nd_nonexistent
> 
>  hw/9pfs/9p.c                 |  57 ++++++----
>  tests/qtest/virtio-9p-test.c | 201 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  2 files changed, 231 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)

Queued on 9p.next:
https://github.com/cschoenebeck/qemu/commits/9p.next

Good time to send a PR for this.

Thanks!

Best regards,
Christian Schoenebeck