On 17/04/13 09:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 16.04.13 at 19:13, David Vrabel <david.vrabel at citrix.com> wrote:
>> -static int kexec_exec(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) uarg)
>> +static int kexec_load(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) uarg)
>> {
>> - xen_kexec_exec_t exec;
>> - xen_kexec_image_t *image;
>> - int base, bit, pos, ret = -EINVAL;
>> + xen_kexec_load_t load;
>> + xen_kexec_segment_t *segments;
>> + struct kexec_image *kimage = NULL;
>> + int ret;
>>
>> - if ( unlikely(copy_from_guest(&exec, uarg, 1)) )
>> + if ( copy_from_guest(&load, uarg, 1) )
>> return -EFAULT;
>>
>> - if ( kexec_load_get_bits(exec.type, &base, &bit) )
>> + if ( load.nr_segments >= KEXEC_SEGMENT_MAX )
>> return -EINVAL;
>
> Especially since you named the padding field _rsvd, you ought
> to verify it to be zero somewhere here. Or if you're really sure
> that nobody will ever want to make use of the field, name it
> _pad instead.
8 bits isn't likely to be useful and the interface can always be
extended by adding a new sub-ob. I'll rename it to _pad.
Do you want to put your acked-by on this patch (with this change) or on
any of the other patches?
David
