On 25/03/2025 2:00 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 25.03.2025 14:52, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 25/03/2025 12:53 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> --- a/xen/drivers/acpi/pmstat.c >>> +++ b/xen/drivers/acpi/pmstat.c >>> @@ -219,25 +218,22 @@ static int get_cpufreq_para(struct xen_s >>> return -EAGAIN; >>> } >>> >>> - if ( !(affected_cpus = xzalloc_array(uint32_t, >>> op->u.get_para.cpu_num)) ) >>> + if ( !(data = xzalloc_array(uint32_t, >>> + max(op->u.get_para.cpu_num, >>> + op->u.get_para.freq_num))) ) >>> return -ENOMEM; >>> + >>> for_each_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus) >>> - affected_cpus[j++] = cpu; >>> + data[i++] = cpu; >>> ret = copy_to_guest(op->u.get_para.affected_cpus, >>> - affected_cpus, op->u.get_para.cpu_num); >>> - xfree(affected_cpus); >>> - if ( ret ) >>> - return ret; >>> + data, op->u.get_para.cpu_num); >>> >>> - if ( !(scaling_available_frequencies = >>> - xzalloc_array(uint32_t, op->u.get_para.freq_num)) ) >>> - return -ENOMEM; >>> for ( i = 0; i < op->u.get_para.freq_num; i++ ) >>> - scaling_available_frequencies[i] = >>> - pmpt->perf.states[i].core_frequency * 1000; >>> + data[i] = pmpt->perf.states[i].core_frequency * 1000; >>> ret = copy_to_guest(op->u.get_para.scaling_available_frequencies, >>> - scaling_available_frequencies, op->u.get_para.freq_num); >>> - xfree(scaling_available_frequencies); >>> + data, op->u.get_para.freq_num) ?: ret; >>> + >>> + xfree(data); >>> if ( ret ) >>> return ret; >>> >> Not altered by this patch, but `ret` is bogus here. >> >> It's the number of bytes not copied, and needs transforming into -EFAULT >> here and later. > Oh, right - I noticed this when making the patch, then forgot again. I can > make another patch, unless you have one in the works already.
I've not started one. Please go ahead. ~Andrew
