Re: [Xen-devel] [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM

["Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx>]

> > > > +int libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm(libxl__gc *gc,
> > > > +                                       libxl_domain_config *d_config,
> > > > +                                       uint64_t rdm_mem_boundary,
> > > > +                                       struct xc_hvm_build_args *args)
> > > > +{
> > > ...
> > > > +    /* Query all RDM entries in this platform */
> > > > +    if (strategy == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_STRATEGY_HOST) {
> > > ...
> > > > +    } else {
> > > > +        d_config->num_rdms = 0;
> > > > +    }
> > > Does this not override the domain configuration's num_rdms ?  I don't
> > We don't have the specific "num_rdms" parameter in .cfg so I don't
> > understand what you mean here.
> The domain configuration specified to libxl might contain some rdms.
> Then num_rdms in the incoming config would be nonzero.
We never set d_config->num_rdms/d_config->rdms before we goes inside 
libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm(). And actually 
libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm is only one place to set 
d_config->num_rdms/d_config->rdms.
I guess this line make you or other guys confused so lets delete this 
line directly.
And if you still worry about something, I can add assert() at the 
beginning of this function like this,
assert(!d_config->num_rdms && !d_config->rdms).

Thanks
Tiejun

> So I think there are two problems here:
>
> 1. If that were the case you would leak the application's rdms array.
>
> 2. Anyway, if the caller specifies such an array you should use it.
>     (Fixing this would avoid (1) in any case.)
>
> Ian.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel