RE: [Xen-devel] [patch] PFN_PHYS PAE overflow (fixes bug 242)

To:	"Scott Parish" <srparish@xxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	RE: [Xen-devel] [patch] PFN_PHYS PAE overflow (fixes bug 242)
From:	"Ian Pratt" <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:55:03 +0100
Delivery-date:	Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:52:26 +0000
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help:	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id:	Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post:	<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index:	AcXQ7b99TKzImb/fSEe5Yb/7btIKRAAJFiUg
Thread-topic:	[Xen-devel] [patch] PFN_PHYS PAE overflow (fixes bug 242)

 
> machine_specific_memory_setup() makes the following call to 
> setup e820:
> 
>     add_memory_region(0, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn), E820_RAM);
> 
> Since max_pfn is (rightly) an unsigned long, we overflow for 
> the current definition of PFN_PHYS. Attached is my preferred 
> solution as it will hopefully avoid similar situations that 
> may come up in the future.

Good catch!

Ian

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
[Xen-devel] [patch] PFN_PHYS PAE overflow (fixes bug 242), Scott Parish RE: [Xen-devel] [patch] PFN_PHYS PAE overflow (fixes bug 242), Ian Pratt <=

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

RE: [Xen-devel] [patch] PFN_PHYS PAE overflow (fixes bug 242)