[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] tools/libxenguest: Fix max_extd_leaf calculation for legacy restore
- To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 10:01:51 +0200
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=JOFJxj8avjEiD9E0J0VJqC4QnGcKRQ3TOuePJrJC76g=; b=KaYxCvg/cNzyQ2qa7rjA678zQmZGDo5QzDvFu34daVjqYO72Bl7FQJXqUHQO/YIDEHZ3VPPSs4NUv8gii5ETxbNzk1+yZ7dEclb4P+QEHUBb3e9ArHqBxf3L+UVMQJr7Syiq0n4Ofo09lfhRnSa7sSM1pSKtQErXf4GbCaYIJTtTf4gjF4jWO8N/gb/8Ma8PO+c9/WZm4G5k1vq5VHVxkIirI7hyruYp0buLsioJxAmgJJcdmrSNfbQHEBKLg0kN91irc+a08Ew/FwuqLZU9GQ3UPp8237FifFwa9N7R6jgIvegooCpvhxuZqho/JkeaZANTXmc+sfqHeJAvyMamlw==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=gP3dY94oL876o9YnWUUZ4ls7V7Wvd4vpaCx+dvEVWRmLcY1E0flOrNx5Fbn18JwjEc1ri5iJmhRWkAyN9s7iZ4FhFbF2NCD0AMvMd4WDqjGp5RW3xRxONt1NogMa98HXzqlbywvx7/XGXND3Dz3dR5hceu01wnZ0/veo124oGOu8IUKRv0HXb3/TYopPMhJkG2Kvnb5/g4ZdI3uKZWG+Ck7JPTpwawhuCQyVumS5MoCIBCKBG7u6nfazKSAaQTAfpmnLweXp/R/g152u4Ge1gRh5r2QLKCweqgN3wCHIkOZEjNoiTa8snjtryLI1AA3QUn1JnXyxCxHfJfIXSwPmAA==
- Authentication-results: lists.xenproject.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;lists.xenproject.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
- Cc: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Olaf Hering <olaf@xxxxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Mon, 05 Jul 2021 08:01:59 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 02.07.2021 21:03, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> 0x1c is lower than any value which will actually be observed in
> p->extd.max_leaf, but higher than the logical 9 leaves worth of extended data
> on Intel systems, causing x86_cpuid_copy_to_buffer() to fail with -ENOBUFS.
>
> Correct the calculation.
>
> The problem was first noticed in c/s 34990446ca9 "libxl: don't ignore the
> return value from xc_cpuid_apply_policy" but introduced earlier.
>
> Fixes: 34990446ca91 ("libxl: don't ignore the return value from
> xc_cpuid_apply_policy")
> Reported-by: Olaf Hering <olaf@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
perhaps with, as suggested by Olaf, the Fixes: line changed.
Jan
|
