Re: [PATCH] x86: assert MBI is large enough in pvh-boot.c

From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
To: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
	Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: assert MBI is large enough in pvh-boot.c
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 06:07:30 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5BAB768202000078001EC2A8@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180926110000.9764-1-wei.liu2@citrix.com>

>>> On 26.09.18 at 13:00, <wei.liu2@citrix.com> wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/guest/pvh-boot.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/guest/pvh-boot.c
> @@ -44,6 +44,13 @@ static void __init convert_pvh_info(void)
>  
>      ASSERT(pvh_info->magic == XEN_HVM_START_MAGIC_VALUE);
>  
> +    /*
> +     * Temporary MBI array needs to be at least one element bigger than
> +     * required. The extra element is used to aid relocation. See
> +     * arch/x86/setup.c:__start_xen().
> +     */
> +    ASSERT(ARRAY_SIZE(pvh_mbi_mods) > pvh_info->nr_modules);

Are ASSERT()s (also the other one in context) actually the right thing
here? I think we'd better panic(): That'll also cover release builds and
is imo more appropriate for data coming from the outside.

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel