From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Thu,  4 Apr 2013 16:49:08 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <0b2786f721d464915432e88eed91c18f@ladd.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAOw7k5hNYLF-B=MnGaKejUM97E2Q5MASANP2EnEJzpi-yyPvMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1d60ad5fac2f22abe5687a2325ab9c63@ladd.quanstro.net>
	<CAOw7k5hNYLF-B=MnGaKejUM97E2Q5MASANP2EnEJzpi-yyPvMQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] IOHDRSZ
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3e986312-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> On 4 April 2013 20:50, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
>
> > so
> > i think this assumption is going to lead to
> > 6-byte buffer overruns.
> >
>
> I don't follow the reasoning. bufsize + Rread or Twrite will always fit.
> bufsize is the limit for application data. The receiving 9P also trims the
> count
> to match the receiving buffer.

i'm thinking of applications that have a seperate buffer for data.
in this case, i can't think of a clean way of sizing that seperate buffer
correctly.  if msize=bufsize+IOHDRSZ, then incoming bytes would
be too big.

- erik