Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] fix misc issues related to allowingsupport of more CPUs

[Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 22/9/08 08:46, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Why must it be WARN_ON()? You think you could specify strings so long that
>> they overflow 32 bits? You've got other problems in that case.
> 
> No, that's not the reason. It's because of how bitmap_scnprintf() and
> bitmap_scnlistprintf() work - they can (validly, assuming that the code
> having been derived from Linux and still being that way in Linux, hence
> apparently considered correct) pass negative sizes to scnprintf(), and
> hence it must not kill the system to actually do so.

The obvious answer would be to fix the bogus callers. Or consider negative
size to be a valid input. Warning on what callers consider valid behaviour
is just weird. I would say the former (fix the callers) is the better way to
go here; presumably they just need to clamp the size parameter.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel