Re: [PATCH v3] x86/PVH: account for module command line length

2025-04-05 Thread Jason Andryuk
On 2025-03-24 08:03, Jan Beulich wrote: As per observation in practice, initrd->cmdline_pa is not normally zero. Hence so far we always appended at least one byte. That alone may already render insufficient the "allocation" made by find_memory(). Things would be worse when there's actually a (per

Re: [PATCH v3] x86/PVH: account for module command line length

2025-03-25 Thread Jan Beulich
On 24.03.2025 19:24, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 24/03/2025 12:03 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: >> As per observation in practice, initrd->cmdline_pa is not normally zero. >> Hence so far we always appended at least one byte. That alone may >> already render insufficient the "allocation" made by find_memory

Re: [PATCH v3] x86/PVH: account for module command line length

2025-03-24 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 24/03/2025 12:03 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: > As per observation in practice, initrd->cmdline_pa is not normally zero. > Hence so far we always appended at least one byte. That alone may > already render insufficient the "allocation" made by find_memory(). > Things would be worse when there's actual

[PATCH v3] x86/PVH: account for module command line length

2025-03-24 Thread Jan Beulich
As per observation in practice, initrd->cmdline_pa is not normally zero. Hence so far we always appended at least one byte. That alone may already render insufficient the "allocation" made by find_memory(). Things would be worse when there's actually a (perhaps long) command line. Skip setup when