On 24.07.2017 14:14, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git) wrote:
> From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilb...@redhat.com>
>
> memsave and pmemsave only take 32bit size arguments in HMP at the
> moment; let them take 64bit values.
>
> Reported-by: Pierre Kim <ad...@manateeshome.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com>
> ---
> hmp-commands.hx | 4 ++--
> hmp.c | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hmp-commands.hx b/hmp-commands.hx
> index 1941e19932..ddf77ae7ac 100644
> --- a/hmp-commands.hx
> +++ b/hmp-commands.hx
> @@ -829,7 +829,7 @@ ETEXI
>
> {
> .name = "memsave",
> - .args_type = "val:l,size:i,filename:s",
> + .args_type = "val:l,size:l,filename:s",
> .params = "addr size file",
> .help = "save to disk virtual memory dump starting at 'addr'
> of size 'size'",
> .cmd = hmp_memsave,
> @@ -843,7 +843,7 @@ ETEXI
>
> {
> .name = "pmemsave",
> - .args_type = "val:l,size:i,filename:s",
> + .args_type = "val:l,size:l,filename:s",
> .params = "addr size file",
> .help = "save to disk physical memory dump starting at 'addr'
> of size 'size'",
> .cmd = hmp_pmemsave,
> diff --git a/hmp.c b/hmp.c
> index bf1de747d5..dfbd615380 100644
> --- a/hmp.c
> +++ b/hmp.c
> @@ -1066,7 +1066,7 @@ void hmp_cpu(Monitor *mon, const QDict *qdict)
>
> void hmp_memsave(Monitor *mon, const QDict *qdict)
> {
> - uint32_t size = qdict_get_int(qdict, "size");
> + uint64_t size = qdict_get_int(qdict, "size");
> const char *filename = qdict_get_str(qdict, "filename");
> uint64_t addr = qdict_get_int(qdict, "val");
> Error *err = NULL;
> @@ -1083,7 +1083,7 @@ void hmp_memsave(Monitor *mon, const QDict *qdict)
>
> void hmp_pmemsave(Monitor *mon, const QDict *qdict)
> {
> - uint32_t size = qdict_get_int(qdict, "size");
> + uint64_t size = qdict_get_int(qdict, "size");
> const char *filename = qdict_get_str(qdict, "filename");
> uint64_t addr = qdict_get_int(qdict, "val");
> Error *err = NULL;
The "size" parameter of the qmp_memsave() and qmp_pmemsave() function is
a signed integer (int64_t) ... could we get into trouble here if the
integer is really big? E.g. should we make "size" here signed, too, and
then add a sanity check for "size >= 0" ?
Thomas
