On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 16:06:08 +0100, Michal Prívozník wrote:
> On 11/16/23 14:05, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 12:38:27 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
[...]
> >> @@ -2244,7 +2246,7 @@ virDomainMemoryDefCheckConflict(const virDomainMemoryDef *mem,
> >> break;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - if (thisStart == 0) {
> >> + if (thisStart == 0 && !thisAddr) {
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >
> > This seems a bit suspicious, because if the start address is 0, where
> > qemu will auto-populate it, the code below will still try to validate
> > it against existing devices.
> >
> > Very theoretically if you are adding a big enough device it can possibly
> > clash with another one that is somewhere further in memory (start
> > address already populated) despite the fact that qemu would put the new
> > device into a reasonable location at the end of the address space.
> >
> > IMO if the start address is 0 we must not attempt to do anything about
> > the address validation and the above condition will make that no longer
> > the case.
> >
>
> Fair enough. Consider this squashed in:
>
> diff --git i/src/conf/domain_validate.c w/src/conf/domain_validate.c
> index f45ee0a8a5..c72108886e 100644
> --- i/src/conf/domain_validate.c
> +++ w/src/conf/domain_validate.c
> @@ -2304,7 +2304,7 @@ virDomainMemoryDefCheckConflict(const
> virDomainMemoryDef *mem,
> break;
> }
>
> - if (otherStart == 0)
> + if (thisStart == 0 || otherStart == 0)
> continue;
>
> if (thisStart <= otherStart && thisEnd > otherStart) {
>
> Or do you want me to send v2?
Reviewed-by: Peter Krempa <pkrempa@xxxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
