> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 17 October 2017 07:43
> To: Paul Durrant <[email protected]>
> Cc: Andrew Cooper <[email protected]>; Wei Liu
> <[email protected]>; George Dunlap <[email protected]>; Ian
> Jackson <[email protected]>; [email protected]; xen-
> [email protected]; [email protected]; Tim (Xen.org)
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 10/11] common: add a new mappable resource
> type: XENMEM_resource_grant_table
>
> >>> Paul Durrant <[email protected]> 10/12/17 6:28 PM >>>
> >@@ -1608,7 +1608,8 @@ fault:
> >}
> >
> >static int
> >-gnttab_populate_status_frames(struct domain *d, struct grant_table *gt,
> >+gnttab_populate_status_frames(struct domain *d,
> >+ struct grant_table *gt,
> >unsigned int req_nr_frames)
>
> What is this change about?
>
It must have crept in accidentally. I'll get rid of it.
> >+int gnttab_get_grant_frame(struct domain *d, unsigned long idx,
> >+ mfn_t *mfn)
> >+{
> >+ struct grant_table *gt = d->grant_table;
> >+ int rc;
> >+
> >+ /* write lock required as version may change and/or table may grow */
> >+ grant_write_lock(gt);
> >+
> >+ rc = (gt->gt_version == 2 &&
> >+ idx > XENMAPIDX_grant_table_status) ?
>
> I don't understand this check - why does XENMAPIDX_grant_table_status
> matter here at all? Same in gnttab_get_status_frame() then.
>
Well, the current legal range of grant table frames for v2 is 0 - (1 <<
XENMAPIDX_grant_table_status) whereas it appears that for v1 there is no limit.
As for status frames, they are a v2-only concept but I agree that the range
check there is wrong.
Paul
> Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
