On Mon, 4 Dec 2017, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 01.12.17 at 22:38, <sstabell...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Nov 2017, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> Jann validly points out that with a caller bogusly requesting a zero- > >> element batch with non-zero high command bits (the ones used for > >> continuation encoding), the assertion right before the call to > >> hypercall_create_continuation() would trigger. A similar situation would > >> arise afaict for non-empty batches with op and/or length zero in every > >> element. > >> > >> While we want the former to succeed (as we do elsewhere for similar > >> no-op requests), the latter can clearly be converted to an error, as > >> this is a state that can't be the result of a prior operation. > >> > >> Take the opportunity and also correct the order of argument checks: > >> We shouldn't accept zero-length elements with unknown bits set in "op". > >> Also constify cache_flush()'s first parameter. > >> > >> Reported-by: Jann Horn <ja...@google.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > > > > Acked-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org> > > Thanks. Since this and the other patch mainly affect ARM, I'd like > to have your opinion please regarding their backporting.
Yes, I think they could be backported. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
