On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 16:55, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 6/4/20 5:30 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > > Not really; I think we should know what we're limiting against. > > Currently you're checking total_len, but this is just sector_len * nb_blocs, > > so if there's a problem with silly large values then it's probably > > actually a problem with one of those being over-sized which would > > still show up even if the total_len was less than 256MB. > > (I suspect the underlying limit here is what the cfi_table entries > > 0x2D..0x30 impose on blocks_per_device and sector_len_per_device.) > > What I'm working on is a whitelist of the few models our machines really > use, but it is taking time. Meanwhile I wanted to at least limit the > total size.
I don't see what we would be whitelisting, though. The only way to create a flash device is from hand-written C code in the board model. If a new board model does something weird we can catch that in code review. Sanity checks on whether the properties supplied by the board code make sense might be useful; randomly saying "you can't have a flash device unless it's one we've seen before" makes less sense to me, because it just means we'll end up adding to the whitelist every time. thanks -- PMM
