Re: [PATCH v7 01/12] nbd/server: Support a request payload

[Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy]

On 27.09.23 18:59, Eric Blake wrote:
> We could also try to be a bit more complicated by peeking at the next
> few bytes: if they look like a magic number of the next request,
> assume the client set the bit accidentally but didn't send a payload
> after all; for anything else, assume the client did pass a payload.
> But adding in machinery to peek at a prefix is more complex than
> either assuming a payload is always present (as done in this patch) or
> assuming the bit was in error (and dropping the connection
> unconditionally).  Preferences?


Ohh, you are right, thanks for comprehensive explanation. I really missed some things you 
are saying about. Yes, now I agree that "payload always exist when flag is set" 
is the best effort. Finally, that was our aim of the protocol design: make it more 
context independent. Probably, we may fix that in specification as preferable or at least 
possible server behavior about non-compliant client.

r-b coming soon, I just need to take another look with corrected picture in 
mind.

--
Best regards,
Vladimir