[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4/6] x86/xstate: Fix latent bugs in expand_xsave_states()
>>> On 12.09.16 at 14:29, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/09/16 12:41, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 12.09.16 at 11:51, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> @@ -205,11 +222,9 @@ void expand_xsave_states(struct vcpu *v, void *dest, >>> unsigned int size) >>> >>> if ( src ) >>> { >>> - ASSERT((xstate_offsets[index] + xstate_sizes[index]) <= size); >>> + BUG_ON((xstate_offsets[index] + xstate_sizes[index]) <= size); >>> memcpy(dest + xstate_offsets[index], src, xstate_sizes[index]); >>> } >>> - else >>> - memset(dest + xstate_offsets[index], 0, xstate_sizes[index]); >> So I have difficulty seeing why this memset() wasn't sufficient: It >> precisely covers for the respective component being in default >> state. > > No it doesn't. The loop skips over all bits which are not set in xstate_bv. Well, yes, I had corrected myself in the following sentence, resulting in me just asking for the commit message to get clarified. > I had (erroneously) come to the conclusion that the "if ( src )" check > only caught the case where we had bad comp_offsets[] information, but > rereading the logic, that case would actually corrupt the legacy SSE header. > > Overall, it turns out that the "if ( src )" is unconditionally taken. Oh, I see (same applies to my then wrong comment on patch 6): We iterate over xstate_bv here, and components with their flag set in xstate_bv won't see NULL coming back from get_xsave_addr(). I'm sorry for the noise then. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |