George Dunlap writes ("[PATCH 6/8] tools/xenalyze: Fix off-by-one in MAX_CPUS
range checks"):
> Skip action / throw error if cpu/vcpu >= MAX_CPUS rather than >.
>
> Also add an assertion to vcpu_find, to make future errors of this kind
> not out-of-bounds.
...
> + /* "Graceful" handling of vid >= MAX_CPUS should be handled elsewhere */
> + if ( vid >= MAX_CPUS ) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "%s: vcpu %d exceeds MAX_CPUS %d!\n",
> + __func__, vid, MAX_CPUS);
> + error(ERR_ASSERT, NULL);
> + }
I'm not convinced by the existence of error(ERR_ASSERT,...). What is
wrong with assert() ?
If you agree that ERR_ASSERT should be got rid of, then you could
start here...
But:
Acked-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
