[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 1 3/8] xen/pt: Check if reg->init is past th
From: |
Stefano Stabellini |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 1 3/8] xen/pt: Check if reg->init is past the reg->size |
Date: |
Wed, 1 Jul 2015 14:54:02 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) |
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> It should never happen, but in case it does we want to
> report. The code will only write up to reg->size so there
> is no runtime danger.
>
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <address@hidden>
> ---
> hw/xen/xen_pt_config_init.c | 8 ++++++--
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/xen/xen_pt_config_init.c b/hw/xen/xen_pt_config_init.c
> index 91c3a14..bc871c9 100644
> --- a/hw/xen/xen_pt_config_init.c
> +++ b/hw/xen/xen_pt_config_init.c
> @@ -1901,9 +1901,13 @@ static int
> xen_pt_config_reg_init(XenPCIPassthroughState *s,
> } else
> val = data;
>
> + if (val & size_mask) {
> + XEN_PT_ERR(&s->dev,"Offset 0x%04x:0x%04u expands past register
> size(%d)!\n",
> + offset, val, reg->size);
should we return early?
> + }
> /* This could be just pci_set_long as we don't modify the bits
> - * past reg->size, but in case this routine is run in parallel
> - * we do not want to over-write other registers. */
> + * past reg->size, but in case this routine is run in parallel or the
> + * init value is larger, we do not want to over-write registers. */
> switch (reg->size) {
> case 1: pci_set_byte(s->dev.config + offset, (uint8_t)val); break;
> case 2: pci_set_word(s->dev.config + offset, (uint16_t)val); break;
> --
> 2.1.0
>
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 1 3/8] xen/pt: Check if reg->init is past the reg->size,
Stefano Stabellini <=