On 17.11.20 17:49, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 26.10.2020 10:13, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> @@ -1057,6 +1063,43 @@ static struct hypfs_entry *cpupool_dir_findentry(struct hypfs_entry_dir *dir,
>>       return hypfs_gen_dyndir_entry_id(&cpupool_pooldir, id);
>>   }
>>   
>> +static int cpupool_gran_read(const struct hypfs_entry *entry,
>> +                             XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) uaddr)
>> +{
>> +    const struct hypfs_dyndir_id *data;
>> +    struct cpupool *cpupool;
> 
> const?

Yes.

> 
>> +    const char *name = "";
>> +
>> +    data = hypfs_get_dyndata();
>> +    if ( !data )
>> +        return -ENOENT;
>> +
>> +    spin_lock(&cpupool_lock);
>> +
>> +    cpupool = __cpupool_find_by_id(data->id, true);
>> +    if ( cpupool )
>> +        name = sched_gran_get_name(cpupool->gran);
>> +
>> +    spin_unlock(&cpupool_lock);
>> +
>> +    if ( !cpupool )
> 
> May I suggest to check !*name here, to avoid giving the impression
> of ...
> 
>> +        return -ENOENT;
>> +
>> +    return copy_to_guest(uaddr, name, strlen(name) + 1) ? -EFAULT : 0;
> 
> ... success (but an empty name) in this admittedly unlikely event?

Fine with me.


Juergen