On 11/22/2010 02:35 PM, Cole Robinson wrote:
>
> Signed-off-by: Cole Robinson <crobinso@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> src/conf/domain_conf.c | 11 +++++++++--
> 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/conf/domain_conf.c b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
> index 11a6280..045934d 100644
> --- a/src/conf/domain_conf.c
> +++ b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
> @@ -4569,7 +4569,7 @@ static virDomainDefPtr virDomainDefParseXML(virCapsPtr caps,
> def->maxvcpus = 1;
> } else {
> def->maxvcpus = count;
> - if (def->maxvcpus != count || count == 0) {
> + if (count == 0) {
At first glance, I was about to complain: Since def->maxvcpus is an
unsigned short but count is an int, someone calling setvcpus 0x10001
will silently overflow and end up setting def->maxvcpus == 1. In other
words, you just deleted the 'def->maxvcpus != count' overflow check...
> virDomainReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR,
> _("invalid maxvcpus %lu"), count);
> goto error;
> @@ -4585,11 +4585,18 @@ static virDomainDefPtr virDomainDefParseXML(virCapsPtr caps,
> def->vcpus = def->maxvcpus;
> } else {
> def->vcpus = count;
> - if (def->vcpus != count || count == 0 || def->maxvcpus < count) {
> + if (count == 0) {
> virDomainReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR,
> _("invalid current vcpus %lu"), count);
> goto error;
> }
> +
> + if (def->maxvcpus < count) {
...but this new code is an equally effective overflow check. No
complaint after all; def is local, so it doesn't matter if we changed
def->maxvcpus to an invalid value before detecting overflow. Thanks for
cleaning this up for me.
--
Eric Blake eblake@xxxxxxxxxx +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list