On 08/01/2020 16:55, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 08.01.2020 17:15, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 08/01/2020 11:38, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> As said - I'm going to try to not stand in the way of you re- >>> arranging this, but >>> - the new code should not break silently when (in particular) >>> l2_bootmap[] changes >> What practical changes do you think could be done here? I can't spot >> any which would be helpful. >> >> A BUILD_BUG_ON() doesn't work. The most likely case for something going >> wrong here is an edit to x86_64.S and no equivalent edit to page.h, >> which a BUILD_BUG_ON() wouldn't spot. head.S similarly has no useful >> protections which could be added. > Well, the fundamental assumption is that the .S files and the > C declaration of l?_bootmap[] are kept in sync. No BUILD_BUG_ON() > can cover a mistake made there. But rather than using the literal > 4 as you did, an ARRAY_SIZE() construct should be usable to either > replace it, or amend it with a BUILD_BUG_ON().
You are aware that ARRAY_SIZE(l2_bootmap) is 2048 and ARRAY_SIZE(l3_bootmap) is 512, neither of which would be correct here? ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
