Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] libelf: Expand ELF note printing

From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: Jason Andryuk <jason.andryuk@amd.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>,
	Julien Grall <julien@xen.org>,
	Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>, Wei Liu <wl@xen.org>,
	xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] libelf: Expand ELF note printing
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:16:47 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ab06fce5-eeba-4ab7-97ca-99d876406693@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240313193021.241764-3-jason.andryuk@amd.com>

On 13.03.2024 20:30, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> @@ -217,6 +225,15 @@ elf_errorstatus elf_xen_parse_note(struct elf_binary *elf,
>      case XEN_ELFNOTE_PHYS32_ENTRY:
>          parms->phys_entry = val;
>          break;
> +
> +    case XEN_ELFNOTE_L1_MFN_VALID:
> +        if ( elf_uval(elf, note, descsz) != 2 * sizeof(uint64_t) )
> +            return -1;

elf_note_numeric() use sites don't have such a check. Why would we need
one here, and even more so causing a error to be raised when in reality
the supplied values (still) aren't consumed? Furthermore the documentation
says "pairs" (plural) for a reason. Finally maddr_t-sized only happens to
mean uint64_t on all architectures we presently support.

Jan

> +        elf_msg(elf, "mask: %#"PRIx64" val: %#"PRIx64"\n",
> +                elf_note_numeric_array(elf, note, 8, 0),
> +                elf_note_numeric_array(elf, note, 8, 1));
> +        break;
>      }
>      return 0;
>  }