On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 21:59 -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 09:58:48PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 08:51:37PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > > > id_to_memslot seems like a good place to catch all the users since > > > > > that's the only way to get a slot from a slot id after the array is > > > > > sorted. We need to check both is the slot in bounds (EINVAL), but also > > > > > is it allocated (ENOENT). id_to_memslot could both of these if we > > > > > wanted to switch it to ERR_PTR. Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > There should never be a reference to a slot out of bounds by KVM itself > > > > (BUG_ON). Only userspace can attempt a reference to such slot. > > > > > > If I understand correctly, you're saying this last chunk is unique > > > because kvm_get_dirty_log() is an internal interface and the test should > > > be restricted to callers from userspace interfaces, namely > > > kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log(). That sounds reasonable; book3s_pr seems > > > to be the only caller that relies on kvm_get_dirty_log() validating the > > > slot. Thanks, > > > > > > Alex > > > > Yep - so you can move the check to such userspace interfaces, and bug on > > on WARN otherwise (in id_to_memslot). > > WARN_ON. The point is, if its not a valid condition, it should be > explicitly so. > > > Does that make sense?? Yep, I'll add that if we decide to go that route. This patch isn't necessary with the series I just posted since the array is still static. Thanks, Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
