> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
> Sent: 10 August 2017 08:28
> To: xen-devel <xen-de...@lists.xenproject.org>
> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Paul Durrant
> <paul.durr...@citrix.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] x86/HVM: fix boundary check in hvmemul_insn_fetch()
> (again)
>
> Commit 5a992b670b ("x86/hvm: Fix boundary check in
> hvmemul_insn_fetch()") went a little too far in its correction to
> commit 0943a03037 ("x86/hvm: Fixes to hvmemul_insn_fetch()"): Keep the
> start offset check, but restore the original end offset one.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
>
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c
> @@ -959,7 +959,7 @@ int hvmemul_insn_fetch(
> * which means something went wrong with instruction decoding...
> */
> if ( insn_off >= sizeof(hvmemul_ctxt->insn_buf) ||
> - (insn_off + bytes) >= sizeof(hvmemul_ctxt->insn_buf) )
> + insn_off + bytes > sizeof(hvmemul_ctxt->insn_buf) )
I thought it was generally good style to have brackets in clauses such as this.
Anyway...
Reviewed-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com>
> {
> ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
> return X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE;
>
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
