>>> On 21.06.17 at 20:13, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/livepatch.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/livepatch.c
> @@ -170,14 +170,27 @@ int arch_livepatch_perform_rela(struct livepatch_elf
> *elf,
> uint8_t *dest = base->load_addr + r->r_offset;
> uint64_t val;
>
> + if ( symndx == STN_UNDEF )
> + {
> + dprintk(XENLOG_ERR, LIVEPATCH "%s: Encountered STN_UNDEF\n",
> + elf->name);
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + }
> +
> if ( symndx > elf->nsym )
Would you mind fixing the off-by-one mistake here at once?
> {
> dprintk(XENLOG_ERR, LIVEPATCH "%s: Relative relocation wants
> symbol@%u which is past end!\n",
> elf->name, symndx);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> -
> - val = r->r_addend + elf->sym[symndx].sym->st_value;
> + else if ( !elf->sym[symndx].sym )
> + {
With this it may also be a good idea to have elf_get_sym() set
sym[0].sym (and sym[0].name) to NULL.
> + dprintk(XENLOG_ERR, LIVEPATCH "%s: No symbol@%u\n",
> + elf->name, symndx);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + else
> + val = r->r_addend + elf->sym[symndx].sym->st_value;
In the spirit of the earlier code here I'd suggest omitting both "else".
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
