On 6/21/21 2:05 PM, Dov Murik wrote:
> +static void fill_sev_hash_table_entry(SevHashTableEntry *e, const uint8_t
> *guid,
> + const uint8_t *hash, size_t hash_len)
> +{
> + memcpy(e->guid, guid, sizeof(e->guid));
> + e->len = sizeof(*e);
> + memcpy(e->hash, hash, hash_len);
Should this memcpy be constrained to MIN(sizeof(e->hash), hash_len)? Or
perhaps an assert statement since I see below that this function's
caller sets this to HASH_SIZE which is currently == sizeof(e->hash).
Actually, the assert statement would be easier to debug if the input
to this function is ever unexpected, especially since it avoids an
outcome where the input is silently truncated; which is a pitfall that
that the memcpy clamping would fall into.
Connor
