qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH RESEND 2/2] vnc: Fix heap corruption


From: Wen Congyang
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH RESEND 2/2] vnc: Fix heap corruption
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 09:37:33 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100413 Fedora/3.0.4-2.fc13 Thunderbird/3.0.4

At 03/03/2011 06:27 AM, Stefan Weil Write:
> Am 02.03.2011 23:01, schrieb Stefan Weil:
>> Am 02.03.2011 19:47, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>>> On 2 March 2011 18:36, Stefan Weil <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> No. I dont't think that the third parameter of bitmap_clear is
>>>> ok like that. See my patch for the correct value.
>>>
>>> Wen's patch:
>>>
>>> + const size_t width = ds_get_width(vd->ds) / 16;
>>> [...]
>>> -    bitmap_set(width_mask, 0, (ds_get_width(vd->ds) / 16));
>>> -    bitmap_clear(width_mask, (ds_get_width(vd->ds) / 16),
>>> -                 VNC_DIRTY_WORDS * BITS_PER_LONG);
>>> +    bitmap_set(width_mask, 0, width);
>>> +    bitmap_clear(width_mask, width, VNC_DIRTY_WORDS * BITS_PER_LONG
>>> - width);
>>>
>>> Your patch:
>>>
>>> bitmap_clear(width_mask, (ds_get_width(vd->ds) / 16),
>>> - VNC_DIRTY_WORDS * BITS_PER_LONG);
>>> + (VNC_MAX_WIDTH - ds_get_width(vd->ds)) / 16);
>>>
>>> Since ui/vnc.h has:
>>>
>>> #define VNC_DIRTY_WORDS (VNC_MAX_WIDTH / (16 * BITS_PER_LONG))
>>>
>>> the third parameter to bitmap_clear is the same value in
>>> both cases, isn't it? Or is this a rounding bug?
>>>
>>> -- PMM
>>
>> Because of rounding effects, both values can be different.
>>
>> The part missing in my patch is correct handling of another
>> rounding effect:
>>
>> VNC_DIRTY_WORDS is exact for 32 bit long values (and the
>> "old" code which used uint32_t until some weeks ago), where
>> VNC_DIRTY_WORDS = 2560/16/32 = 5.
>>
>> For 64 bit values, VNC_DIRTY_WORDS = 2560/16/64 = 2 (rounded)!
>>
>> Stefan W.
> 
> 
> Is bitmap_clear() really needed here? Meanwhile I think it is not,
> so this might be a new patch variant...

I do not know why we call bitmap_clear() hear. I only know it is
the same as the old code:

-static inline void vnc_set_bits(uint32_t *d, int n, int nb_words)
-{
-    int j;
-
-    j = 0;
-    while (n >= 32) {
-        d[j++] = -1;
-        n -= 32;
-    }
-    if (n > 0)
-        d[j++] = (1 << n) - 1;
-    while (j < nb_words)               <=== bitmap_clear()
-        d[j++] = 0;
-}

-    vnc_set_bits(width_mask, (ds_get_width(vd->ds) / 16), VNC_DIRTY_WORDS);
+    bitmap_set(width_mask, 0, (ds_get_width(vd->ds) / 16));
+    bitmap_clear(width_mask, (ds_get_width(vd->ds) / 16),
+                 VNC_DIRTY_WORDS * BITS_PER_LONG);


> 
> 
> 




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]