On 11.07.2025 03:07, dm...@proton.me wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 01:16:24PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 10.07.2025 03:35, dm...@proton.me wrote: >>> @@ -877,6 +873,16 @@ struct domain *domain_create(domid_t domid, >>> >>> /* All error paths can depend on the above setup. */ >>> >>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(DOMAIN_CONSOLE_BUF_SIZE <= 0); >> >> While the "equals 0" case can in principle happen, the "less than" part >> is dead code (and hence this needs checking differently): The type of >> DOMAIN_CONSOLE_BUF_SIZE is an unsigned one, so wrapping through 0 will >> yield huge positive values. >> >>> + err = -ENOMEM; >>> + d->console = xzalloc_bytes(DOMAIN_CONSOLE_SIZE); >> >> As previously indicated, new code ought to use the xv*alloc family of >> functions, which deliberately doesn't include any ..._bytes() forms. >> Note how instead there is xvzalloc_flex_struct() for situations like >> the one here. > > Looks like xvzalloc_flex_struct() is not used anywhere in the code base...
And what do you mean to tell me by that? xvmalloc_flex_struct() is used, and x[mz]alloc_flex_struct() uses are still in need of conversion (which is going to be a slow-going process). Jan
