>> if (hint) {
>> - new_addr = *hint;
>> - if (new_addr < address_space_start) {
>> + if (!range_valid(*hint, size)) {
>> error_setg(errp, "can't add memory device [0x%" PRIx64 ":0x%"
>> PRIx64
>> - "] before 0x%" PRIx64, new_addr, size,
>> - address_space_start);
>> + "], range overflow", *hint, size);
>> return 0;
>> - } else if ((new_addr + size) > address_space_end) {
>> + }
>> + range_init(&new, *hint, size);
>> + if (range_starts_before_range(&new, &as)) {
>> + error_setg(errp, "can't add memory device [0x%" PRIx64 ":0x%"
>> PRIx64
>> + "] before 0x%" PRIx64, range_lob(&new),
>> range_size(&new),
>> + range_lob(&as));
>> + return 0;
>> + } else if (range_ends_after_range(&new, &as)) {
>> error_setg(errp, "can't add memory device [0x%" PRIx64 ":0x%"
>> PRIx64
>> - "] beyond 0x%" PRIx64, new_addr, size,
>> - address_space_end);
>> + "] beyond 0x%" PRIx64, range_lob(&new),
>> range_size(&new),
>> + range_upb(&as));
>
> Would !range_contains_range be easier here?
Yes, but then we have to change the error message, e.g. to
can't add memory device [...:...], usable range [...:...]
>
>> return 0;
>> }
>> } else {
>> - new_addr = address_space_start;
>> + /* our previous size checks make sure that this never overflows */
>
> Hmm, which one exactly?
Previous patch in this series, via memory_device_check_addable().
But we can add an explicit check here.
>
>> + range_init(&new, range_lob(&as), size);
>> }
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
