On 06/20/2017 02:03 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 20.06.17 at 14:51, <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote:
On 06/20/2017 01:40 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 20/06/17 13:39, Julien Grall wrote:
On 06/20/2017 09:37 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 20/06/17 07:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
Commit d18627583d ("memory: don't hand MFN info to translated guests")
wrongly added a null-handle check there - just like stated in its
description for memory_exchange(), the array is also an input for
populate_physmap() (and hence can't reasonably be null). I have no idea
how I've managed to overlook this.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
Am I correct that this is not a bug and only a pointless check?
This is a partial reversion of d18627583d and needs to be included in
4.9, to avoid a regression.
Would you mind to explain why this would introduce regression? AFAICT
the check is just redundant, so keeping it is not that bad.
Afaict there would be a regression only if someone invoked the
hypercall with a null handle (but having valid data at address zero).
Still I agree with Andrew that we'd better include this in 4.9.
Hmmm. It didn't occur to me that someone would put valid data at address
zero.
Release-acked-by: Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com>
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
