On 03/09/18 14:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 03.09.18 at 13:59, <jgr...@suse.com> wrote:
>> --- a/tools/xl/xl_vcpu.c
>> +++ b/tools/xl/xl_vcpu.c
>> @@ -341,6 +341,10 @@ static int vcpuset(uint32_t domid, const char*
>> nr_vcpus, int check_host)
>> fprintf(stderr, "Error: Invalid argument.\n");
>> return 1;
>> }
>> + if (nr_vcpus == 0) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "Error: Setting number of vcpus to 0 isn't
>> allowed.\n");
>> + return 1;
>> + }
>
> This message is liable to be confusing when the string passed in
> represents a non-zero number which, when converted to
> unsigned int, yields zero. I think more thorough input checking is
> needed here. main_vcpupin(), for example, deliberately uses a
> type wider than seemingly necessary, to avoid such an issue.
>
> I also wonder whether rejecting zero here is really the job of the
> frontend, rather than libxl.
Yes, this would be better.
As the number ov vcpus is determined by counting the bits in the
cpumap, and this value is an int, I guess we should limit the upper
bound to INT_MAX.
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
