>>> On 30.03.16 at 15:19, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] >> Sent: 30 March 2016 14:17 >> To: Paul Durrant >> Cc: Andrew Cooper; xen-de...@lists.xenproject.org; Keir (Xen.org) >> Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86/hvm/viridian: zero and check vcpu context __pad >> field >> >> >>> On 30.03.16 at 13:26, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] >> >> Sent: 30 March 2016 12:23 >> >> >>> On 30.03.16 at 12:32, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/viridian.c >> >> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/viridian.c >> >> > @@ -824,6 +824,8 @@ static int viridian_save_vcpu_ctxt(struct domain >> *d, >> >> hvm_domain_context_t *h) >> >> > for_each_vcpu( d, v ) { >> >> > struct hvm_viridian_vcpu_context ctxt; >> >> > >> >> > + memset(&ctxt, 0, sizeof(ctxt)); >> >> >> >> How about just adding an empty initializer to the declaration? >> >> >> > >> > I think having a 'zero the entire struct' call at the start is better as it >> > will cover any additions made to the struct in future. It's what I had >> > mistakenly assumed was already there. In fact I think adding a similar call >> > into the domain context save function would probably be worthwhile. >> >> And how does the initializer approach not fulfill that intention? >> > > Because any time anyone adds another field they have to remember to add > another initializer, which is what I forgot to do. This approach OTOH is > failsafe.
But note how I said "an empty initializer": When there is an initializer at all, all fields not mentioned in the initializer will get default initialized (i.e. zeroed). Hence an empty initializer clears the entire structure. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
