[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [BUGFIX][PATCH 3/4] hvm_save_one: return correct data.
 
 
| 
  
  
     On 12/16/13 03:17, Jan Beulich wrote: 
     
    
      
        
          
            On 15.12.13 at 17:51, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
 
           
         
        On 15/12/2013 00:29, Don Slutz wrote:
 
        
          
I think I have corrected all coding errors (please check again). And
done all requested changes.  I did add the reviewed by (not sure if I
should since this changes a large part of the patch, but they are all
what Jan said).
I have unit tested it and it appears to work the same as the previous
version (as expected).
Here is the new version, also attached.
From e0e8f5246ba492b153884cea93bfe753f1b0782e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Don Slutz <dslutz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:22:53 -0500
Subject: [PATCH v2 3/4] hvm_save_one: return correct data.
It is possible that hvm_sr_handlers[typecode].save does not use all
the provided room.  In that case, using:
   instance * hvm_sr_handlers[typecode].size
does not select the correct instance.  Add code to search for the
correct instance.
Signed-off-by: Don Slutz <dslutz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
 
         
        
but this fairs no better at selecting the correct subset in the case
that less data than hvm_sr_handlers[typecode].size is written by
hvm_sr_handlers[typecode].save.
 
       
      
Oh, yes, indeed.
 
      
        It always increments by 'size' bytes, and will only copy the data back
if the bytes under desc->instance happen to match the instance we are
looking for.
The only solution I can see is that for the per-vcpu records, the save
functions get refactored to take an instance ID, and only save their
specific instance.
 
       
      
I don't see why you shouldn't be able to look at the descriptor
instead - that one does have the correct size, doesn't it?
Jan
 
     
    Attached is v3 of this.  It is basically a merge of patch #3 and
    patch #4 with cleanups. 
     
    This is what I said in: 
     
    http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2013-12/msg02216.html 
     
    and Andrew replied in: 
     
    http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2013-12/msg02217.html 
     
    and the RFC is: 
     
    http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2013-12/msg02223.html 
     
    to which: 
     
    http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2013-12/msg02270.html 
     
    (from this): 
    
      
        IMHO this is obviously not 4.4 material at this stage. Apart from
anything else we've been managing to release with these short comings
for many years.
 
       
      Indeed. -George 
     
    
I feel that the attached bugfix patch is simple enough to make it into 4.4 and also be back ported to stable branches.
   -Don Slutz
 
     
     
     
     
     
  
 |  
 Attachment:
0001-hvm_save_one-return-correct-data.patch 
Description: Text Data 
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
 
 
    
     |