On 01/05/15 20:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> 05/01/15 4:05 PM >>>
--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
@@ -5638,6 +5638,299 @@ static int hvmop_set_evtchn_upcall_vector(
return 0;
}
>
+static int hvmop_set_param(
+ XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_hvm_param_t) arg)
+{
+ struct domain *curr_d = current->domain;
+ struct xen_hvm_param a;
+ struct domain *d;
+ struct vcpu *v;
+ int rc = 0;
Iirc Andrew indicated that Coverity would complain about dead initializers like
this.
Likely, yes.
It is less clear whether this case would trigger it, but I know for
certain that it dislikes "int rc = 0; rc = fn();"
+ if ( copy_from_guest(&a, arg, 1) )
+ return -EFAULT;
+
+ if ( a.index >= HVM_NR_PARAMS )
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ d = rcu_lock_domain_by_any_id(a.domid);
+ if ( d == NULL )
+ return -ESRCH;
+
+ rc = -EINVAL;
(Not used anywhere up from here.)
+ if ( is_pvh_domain(d)
+ && (a.index != HVM_PARAM_CALLBACK_IRQ) )
+ goto out;
It would have been nice if you had corrected style issues like the misplaced &&
as you go; I'll try to remember to do so while committing (together with a few
more
and the adjustment for the issue above).
+ case HVM_PARAM_IOREQ_PFN:
+ case HVM_PARAM_BUFIOREQ_PFN:
+ case HVM_PARAM_BUFIOREQ_EVTCHN:
+ {
+ domid_t domid;
+
+ /* May need to create server */
+ domid = d->arch.hvm_domain.params[HVM_PARAM_DM_DOMAIN];
+ rc = hvm_create_ioreq_server(d, domid, 1, 1, NULL);
+ if ( rc != 0 && rc != -EEXIST )
+ goto out;
+ /*FALLTHRU*/
+ }
+ default:
Andrew - will Coverity be happy with the fall-through comment being followed
by a closing brace?
I don't have the exact reference to hand (I am still travelling), but I
expect not. Such a brace could be part of an if/else clause which would
mean that it wasn't the only codepath to fall through.
~Andrew
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
