Hi Peter,
On 6/24/19 8:37 AM, Peter Xu wrote:
> From: Yan Zhao <yan.y.z...@intel.com>
>
> IOMMUNotifier is with inclusive ranges, so we should check
> against (VTD_ADDRESS_SIZE(s->aw_bits) - 1).
>
> Signed-off-by: Yan Zhao <yan.y.z...@intel.com>
> [peterx: split from another bigger patch]
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <eric.au...@redhat.com>
Thanks
Eric
> ---
> hw/i386/intel_iommu.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> index 44b1231157..719ce19ab3 100644
> --- a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> +++ b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> @@ -3379,12 +3379,12 @@ static void vtd_address_space_unmap(VTDAddressSpace
> *as, IOMMUNotifier *n)
> * VT-d spec), otherwise we need to consider overflow of 64 bits.
> */
>
> - if (end > VTD_ADDRESS_SIZE(s->aw_bits)) {
> + if (end > VTD_ADDRESS_SIZE(s->aw_bits) - 1) {
> /*
> * Don't need to unmap regions that is bigger than the whole
> * VT-d supported address space size
> */
> - end = VTD_ADDRESS_SIZE(s->aw_bits);
> + end = VTD_ADDRESS_SIZE(s->aw_bits) - 1;
> }
>
> assert(start <= end);
>
