On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 04:10:44PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 06/06/2012 15:31, Andreas Färber ha scritto: > >> > > >> > (a) add < 0 checks to <http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/150427/> and > >> > include it in the series, > >> > (b) make all Netdev integer types as strict as possible, remove > >> > superfluous checks, > >> > (c) render NetLegacy::name optional. > >> > > >> > How do I lay out (a)? Should I include the patch verbatim first (with > >> > proper From: and Signed-off-by: lines) and then modify it in a small > >> > followup, or squash those two and... what? :) > > I am missing context here. The referenced patch is on qom-next already > > and will thus be in my upcoming PULL (today or tomorrow) unless someone > > comments on that patch, cc'ing me, that there's an error. Feel free to > > cherry-pick from there but do not squash into random series please. > > > > I don't understand what < 0 checks you are talking about, lacking time > > to go through this QIDL patch series ATM. > > The uintXX visitors do not fail if you pass a negative value. I'm fine > with including the patch with the small bug and fixing it as a > follow-up, there's plenty of time before 1.2.
How would we implement such a check? In the case of uint64_t, the field we're visiting is passed in as a uint64_t*, so -1 is indistinguishable from the unsigned interpretation of the field, which is within the valid range. For uintXX_t where XX < 64, a negative value would exceed the UINTXX_MAX check, so those cases are already handled. Or am I missing something? > > Paolo >
