> The only 'error' cases I've encountered so far is a read of all zeroes (and a
> halting the machine once you've read beyond a certain point) or a read of
> 0xff throughout the entire area. So that approach would work for both of them.
I should add that I'd tested the previous patch and this patc
On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 09:13:35 AM Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 08:52:10 AM Alexander Duyck wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> >> > + if (header[0] ==
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 08:52:10 AM Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> > + if (header[0] == 0xff) {
>> > + /* Invalid data from VPD read */
>> >
On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 08:52:10 AM Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > PCI-2.2 VPD entries have a maximum size of 32k, but might actually
> > be smaller than that. To figure out the actual size one has to read
> > the VPD area until the 'en
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> PCI-2.2 VPD entries have a maximum size of 32k, but might actually
> be smaller than that. To figure out the actual size one has to read
> the VPD area until the 'end marker' is reached.
> Trying to read VPD data beyond that marker results
PCI-2.2 VPD entries have a maximum size of 32k, but might actually
be smaller than that. To figure out the actual size one has to read
the VPD area until the 'end marker' is reached.
Trying to read VPD data beyond that marker results in 'interesting'
effects, from simple read errors to crashing the
6 matches
Mail list logo
