On Mon Aug 12, 2024 at 4:16 PM BST, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 08.08.2024 15:41, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c > > @@ -1344,7 +1344,10 @@ void arch_get_info_guest(struct vcpu *v, > > vcpu_guest_context_u c) > > #define c(fld) (c.nat->fld) > > #endif > > > > - memcpy(&c.nat->fpu_ctxt, v->arch.fpu_ctxt, sizeof(c.nat->fpu_ctxt)); > > + memcpy(&c.nat->fpu_ctxt, &v->arch.xsave_area->fpu_sse, > > + sizeof(c.nat->fpu_ctxt)); > > + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(c.nat->fpu_ctxt) != sizeof(fpusse_t)); > > While it may seem unlikely that it would change going forward, I think > that such build-time checks should make no implications at all. I.e. > here the right side ought to be sizeof(v->arch.xsave_area->fpu_sse) > even if that's longer.
Sounds sensible. > > Personally I also think that BUILD_BUG_ON(), just like BUG_ON(), would > better live ahead of the construct they're for. > > Same again in at least one more place. > > Jan Ack, sure. Cheers, Alejandro
