On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 07:59:27AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > 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).
Just an observation; I was not aware of these APIs and I was not aware that there's some slow-going process of switching to preferred use of xvzalloc_flex_struct(). > > Jan
