>>> On 17.04.13 at 12:11, David Vrabel <david.vrabel at citrix.com> wrote:
> 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?
No, I didn't look at this closely enough to do so.
Jan
