qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] acpi: Set proper maximum size for "etc/acpi/rsdp" blo


From: David Hildenbrand
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] acpi: Set proper maximum size for "etc/acpi/rsdp" blob
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 13:16:01 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.0

On 15.03.21 12:54, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Thu,  4 Mar 2021 11:55:54 +0100
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:

Let's also set a maximum size for "etc/acpi/rsdp", so the maximum
size doesn't get implicitly set based on the initial table size. In my
experiments, the table size was in the range of 22 bytes, so a single
page (== what we used until now) seems to be good enough.

Now that we have defined maximum sizes for all currently used table types,
let's assert that we catch usage with new tables that need a proper maximum
size definition.

Also assert that our initial size does not exceed the maximum size; while
qemu_ram_alloc_internal() properly asserts that the initial RAMBlock size
is <= its maximum size, the result might differ when the host page size
is bigger than 4k.

Suggested-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Cc: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@xilinx.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhaosl@gmail.com>
Cc: Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
---
  hw/acpi/utils.c | 7 ++++++-
  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/hw/acpi/utils.c b/hw/acpi/utils.c
index f2d69a6d92..0c486ea29f 100644
--- a/hw/acpi/utils.c
+++ b/hw/acpi/utils.c
@@ -29,14 +29,19 @@
  MemoryRegion *acpi_add_rom_blob(FWCfgCallback update, void *opaque,
                                  GArray *blob, const char *name)
  {
-    uint64_t max_size = 0;
+    uint64_t max_size;
[...]
+    } else {
+        g_assert_not_reached();
      }
+    g_assert(acpi_data_len(blob) <= max_size);

though it's correct,
but theoretically compiler might get unhappy about uninitialized max_size here

though if it compiles fine with our current CI it should be good enough

I think the compiler will respect g_assert_not_reached() as intended and suppress warnings.

For example, see block/qed.c:qed_aio_write_data() where be don't have a return statement on g_assert_not_reached() exit paths.

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb




reply via email to

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