>>> On 30.01.16 at 15:38, <yu.c.zh...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 1/30/2016 12:33 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 29.01.16 at 11:45, <yu.c.zh...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>>> @@ -940,6 +940,8 @@ static int hvm_ioreq_server_alloc_rangesets(struct
>>> hvm_ioreq_server *s,
>>> {
>>> unsigned int i;
>>> int rc;
>>> + unsigned int max_wp_ram_ranges =
>>> + s->domain->arch.hvm_domain.params[HVM_PARAM_MAX_WP_RAM_RANGES];
>>
>> You're still losing the upper 32 bits here. Iirc you agreed to range
>> check the value before storing into params[]...
>
> Thanks, Jan. :)
> In this version, the check is added in routine parse_config_data().
> If option 'max_wp_ram_ranges' is configured with an unreasonable value,
> the xl will terminate, before calling xc_hvm_param_set(). Does this
> change meet your requirement? Or maybe did I have some misunderstanding
> on this issue?
Checking in the tools is desirable, but the hypervisor shouldn't rely
on any tool side checking.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
