On 07/09/18 09:55, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 06.09.18 at 17:21, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: >> On 06/09/18 09:56, Paul Durrant wrote: >>>> @@ -4390,9 +4411,6 @@ static int hvmop_get_param( >>>> if ( copy_from_guest(&a, arg, 1) ) >>>> return -EFAULT; >>>> >>>> - if ( a.index >= HVM_NR_PARAMS ) >>>> - return -EINVAL; >>>> - >>> ASSERT, just in case someone screws up the allow function in future? >> That's not going to help in any practical way. This check does really >> exist, and is part of the switch statement. > Which switch() statement? The one in the allow function includes this, > but the one here simply has > > default: > a.value = d->arch.hvm.params[a.index]; > break;
A boundary check on a.index logically falls within the remit of hvm_allow_get_param() ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
