On 01.12.22 22:58, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Juergen,On 01/11/2022 15:28, Juergen Gross wrote:static bool check_indexes(XENSTORE_RING_IDX cons, XENSTORE_RING_IDX prod)@@ -492,8 +504,12 @@ static struct domain *find_or_alloc_existing_domain(unsigned int domid)xc_dominfo_t dominfo; domain = find_domain_struct(domid); - if (!domain && get_domain_info(domid, &dominfo)) - domain = alloc_domain(NULL, domid); + if (!domain) { + if (!get_domain_info(domid, &dominfo)) + errno = ENOENT; + else + domain = alloc_domain(NULL, domid); + }I don't understand how this change is related to this commit.
It is directly related to the hunk below. Returning errno in acc_add_dom_nbentry() requires it to be set correctly in find_or_alloc_existing_domain(). I'll add a remark in the commit message.
[...]+int acc_add_dom_nbentry(const void *ctx, struct list_head *head, int val, + unsigned int domid) +{ + struct changed_domain *cd; + + cd = acc_get_changed_domain(ctx, head, domid); + if (!cd) + return errno; + + cd->nbentry += val;As a future improvement, it would be worth considering to check for underflow/overflow.
Do you really think we need to make sure not to add/remove more than 2 billion nodes owned by a single domain? Juergen
OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
