[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V3 1/1] amd/iommu: Fix infinite loop due to ivrs_bdf_entries larger than 16-bit value
On 12/30/2013 07:04 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: On 12/29/2013 06:34 PM, suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx wrote:From: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx> Certain AMD systems could have upto 0x10000 ivrs_bdf_entries. However, the loop variable (bdf) is declared as u16 which causes inifinite loop when parsing IOMMU event log with IO_PAGE_FAULT event. This patch changes the variable to u32 instead. Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> --- V3: - More places found in iommu_acpi.c - Add signed off message. V2: - Fix in more places as pointed out by Andrew xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu_acpi.c | 17 +++++++++++------ xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu_init.c | 13 +++++++------ 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu_acpi.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu_acpi.c index fca2037..b396e0e 100644 --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu_acpi.c +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu_acpi.c @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ static int __init register_exclusion_range_for_all_devices( int seg = 0; /* XXX */ unsigned long range_top, iommu_top, length; struct amd_iommu *iommu; - u16 bdf; + u32 bdf; /* is part of exclusion range inside of IOMMU virtual address space? */ /* note: 'limit' parameter is assumed to be page-aligned */ @@ -237,7 +237,8 @@ static int __init register_exclusion_range_for_iommu_devices( unsigned long base, unsigned long limit, u8 iw, u8 ir) { unsigned long range_top, iommu_top, length; - u16 bdf, req; + u32 bdf; + u16 req; /* is part of exclusion range inside of IOMMU virtual address space? */ /* note: 'limit' parameter is assumed to be page-aligned */ @@ -292,7 +293,8 @@ static int __init parse_ivmd_device_range( const struct acpi_ivrs_memory *ivmd_block, unsigned long base, unsigned long limit, u8 iw, u8 ir) { - u16 first_bdf, last_bdf, bdf; + u16 first_bdf, last_bdf; + u32 bdf; int error;Shouldn't first_bdf and last_bdf be u32 as well? There is, for example, a loop in this routine for ( bdf = first_bdf, error = 0; (bdf <= last_bdf) && !error; bdf++ ) And in routines below as well. -boris I am not expecting the first_bdf and last_bdf to be greater than 16-bit. However, for the bitwise logic comparisons, I can make them all 32-bit. I'll send out V4. Thanks for the review. Suravee _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |