Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/setup: add paranoid index check and warning

[Martin Kelly <martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/14/2014 02:22 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 14/10/14 02:19, Martin Kelly wrote:
>> In a call to set_phys_range_identity, i-1 is used without checking that
>> i is non-zero. Although unlikely, a bug in the code before it could
>> cause the value to be 0, leading to erroneous behavior. This patch adds
>> a check against 0 value and a corresponding warning.
> 
> This can only happen if the toolstack supplies a memory map with zero
> entries.  I could see justification for adding a panic at the top of
> this function in this case, but I can't see the usefulness of this warning.
> 

Yes, a panic is probably appropriate. What do you think about the relative 
merits of panicing in the callers vs. in the sanitize_e820_map function itself 
(thus to avoid a bunch of similar error checks in the callers)?

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel