On Wed, 4 Sept 2024 at 13:48, Fabiano Rosas <faro...@suse.de> wrote:
>
> In preparation for adding new payload types to multifd, move most of
> the no-compression code into multifd-nocomp.c. Let's try to keep a
> semblance of layering by not mixing general multifd control flow with
> the details of transmitting pages of ram.
>
> There are still some pieces leftover, namely the p->normal, p->zero,
> etc variables that we use for zero page tracking and the packet
> allocation which is heavily dependent on the ram code.
>
> Reviewed-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Fabiano Rosas <faro...@suse.de>
I know Coverity has only flagged this up because the
code has moved, but it seems like a good place to ask
the question:
> +void multifd_ram_fill_packet(MultiFDSendParams *p)
> +{
> + MultiFDPacket_t *packet = p->packet;
> + MultiFDPages_t *pages = &p->data->u.ram;
> + uint32_t zero_num = pages->num - pages->normal_num;
> +
> + packet->pages_alloc = cpu_to_be32(multifd_ram_page_count());
> + packet->normal_pages = cpu_to_be32(pages->normal_num);
> + packet->zero_pages = cpu_to_be32(zero_num);
> +
> + if (pages->block) {
> + strncpy(packet->ramblock, pages->block->idstr, 256);
Coverity points out that when we fill in the RAMBlock::idstr
here, if packet->ramblock is not NUL terminated then we won't
NUL-terminate idstr either (CID 1560071).
Is this really what is intended?
Perhaps
pstrncpy(packet->ramblock, sizeof(packet->ramblock),
pages->block->idstr);
would be better?
(pstrncpy will always NUL-terminate, and won't pointlessly
zero-fill the space after the string in the destination.)
> + }
> +
> + for (int i = 0; i < pages->num; i++) {
> + /* there are architectures where ram_addr_t is 32 bit */
> + uint64_t temp = pages->offset[i];
> +
> + packet->offset[i] = cpu_to_be64(temp);
> + }
> +
> + trace_multifd_send_ram_fill(p->id, pages->normal_num,
> + zero_num);
> +}
thanks
-- PMM
