On Thu, 2011-09-29 at 20:52 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> We could be referencing the last + 1 element of level_name[]
> array which would cause a pointer exception.
If we end up accessing it does that not mean something, i.e. should it
not be a real string here and not NULL? Otherwise isn't it a bug in the
lookup code that we end up looking there?
I think this lookup correspond to the initialisation of lvl=4 and
falling through the subsequent list of checks without matching one. In
which case I think level_name[4] should be "unknown" or even "error".
I don't think you can hit type_name[4] in the same way, type and
prev_type are always one of the TYPE_* defines, which have values 0..3
inclusive. You could make this more obvious and defend against future
changes breaking this with:
... type_name[] = {
[TYPE_IDENTITY] = "identity",
[TYPE_MISSING] = "missing"
...
};
Ian.
>
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/xen/p2m.c | 4 ++--
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/p2m.c b/arch/x86/xen/p2m.c
> index 58efeb9..bc4cf0a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/xen/p2m.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/p2m.c
> @@ -786,9 +786,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(m2p_find_override_pfn);
> int p2m_dump_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> {
> static const char * const level_name[] = { "top", "middle",
> - "entry", "abnormal" };
> + "entry", "abnormal", NULL};
> static const char * const type_name[] = { "identity", "missing",
> - "pfn", "abnormal"};
> + "pfn", "abnormal", NULL};
> #define TYPE_IDENTITY 0
> #define TYPE_MISSING 1
> #define TYPE_PFN 2
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home