At 18:03 +0200 on 15 Apr (1618509812), Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.04.2021 17:59, Tim Deegan wrote:
> > At 12:42 +0200 on 12 Apr (1618231332), Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> Some of them have entries with stale comments. Rather than correcting
> >> these comments, re-arrange how these arrays get populated, shrinking
> >> their sizes at the same time (by omitting trailing NULL entries: Use
> >> dedicated element initializers, serving the purpose of what the
> >> comments did so far. This then also makes these arrays independent of
> >> the actual ordering of the individual SH_type_*.
> >>
> >> While tightening respective ASSERT()s in hash_{vcpu,domain}_foreach(),
> >> also tighten related ones in shadow_hash_{insert,delete}().
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
> >
> > Looks good, but please leave the arrays at full size. With the full
> > array, a bug could lead to an assertion failure or NULL deref; with
> > a short array it could mean following a bogus funtion pointer.
> >
> > With that change, Acked-by: Tim Deegan <t...@xen.org>
>
> Thanks, but let me ask back about which of the two possble meanings
> of "full" you mean: Dimensioned by SH_type_unused, or dimensioned
> by SH_type_max_shadow + 1? The former would leave the arrays as they
> are now, while the latter would shrink them a little.
As they are now, please.
Cheers,
Tim.
