On Thursday, 2020-06-04 at 22:15:42 -04, Yan Zhao wrote: > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 05:25:15PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> On Sun, 17 May 2020 22:49:44 -0400 >> Yan Zhao <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > This allows a simpler VFIO_DEVICE_GET_INFO ioctl in vendor driver >> > >> > Cc: Kevin Tian <[email protected]> >> > Signed-off-by: Yan Zhao <[email protected]> >> > --- >> > drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++-- >> > drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h | 2 ++ >> > include/linux/vfio.h | 3 +++ >> > 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c >> > index 290b7ab55ecf..30137c1c5308 100644 >> > --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c >> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c >> > @@ -105,6 +105,24 @@ void *vfio_pci_vendor_data(void *device_data) >> > } >> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfio_pci_vendor_data); >> > >> > +int vfio_pci_set_vendor_regions(void *device_data, int num_vendor_regions) >> > +{ >> > + struct vfio_pci_device *vdev = device_data; >> > + >> > + vdev->num_vendor_regions = num_vendor_regions; >> >> Do we need any kind of sanity check here, in case this is called with a >> bogus value? >> > you are right. it at least needs to be >=0. > maybe type of "unsigned int" is more appropriate for num_vendor_regions. > we don't need to check its max value as QEMU would check it.
That seems like a bad precedent - the caller may not be QEMU. dme. -- I'm not the reason you're looking for redemption.
