Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 09/24] xsplice: Implement payload loading

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 08:37:45PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 04:50:10PM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> On 09.04.16 at 00:45, <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:18:09PM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >> >>> On 08.04.16 at 23:10, <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> >> > +int arch_xsplice_perform_rela(struct xsplice_elf *elf,
> > >> >> > +                              const struct xsplice_elf_sec *base,
> > >> >> > +                              const struct xsplice_elf_sec *rela)
> > >> >> > +{
> > >> >> > +    const Elf_RelA *r;
> > >> >> > +    unsigned int symndx, i;
> > >> >> > +    uint64_t val;
> > >> >> > +    uint8_t *dest;
> > >> >> > +
> > >> >> > +    if ( !rela->sec->sh_entsize || !rela->sec->sh_size ||
> > >> >> > +         rela->sec->sh_entsize != sizeof(Elf_RelA) )
> > >> >> > +    {
> > >> >> > +        dprintk(XENLOG_DEBUG, XSPLICE "%s: Section relative header 
> > >> >> > is corrupted!\n",
> > >> >> > +                elf->name);
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> XENLOG_ERR surely? (and the other examples).
> > >> > 
> > >> > Yes! I modified all of those that return an error. One of them I made
> > >> > an printk (the one about more than 64 sections).
> > >> 
> > >> Why would that be any worse than other check failures? I think
> > >> these log messages should all be issued consistently.
> > > 
> > > OK, so all be printk instead of dprintk?
> > 
> > Rather the other way around I would say.
> 
> Back to dprintk(XENLOG_DEBUG for all of them then.

The one question I have is - what shall we do in the field?
Where the hypervisor is not built with debug=y and all the
dprintk are gone. Some of these would be beneficial to
the consumer (like the corruptions)?

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