Re: [Xen-devel] wrong vmexit size in xenalyze

[Olaf Hering <olaf@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Nov 19, George Dunlap wrote:

> If you have a better idea, I'm open to it.  A bit more discipline --
> doing an audit of the tracing after the feature freeze before each
> release -- would be helpful; some automated testing would be even
> more helpful.

I think the extra u32 is just padding and can be ignored.
Whats the purpose of the ->extra_bytes checks? If its just a data
integrity check, it can be removed because reading past the end of the
record data should not harm. Maybe limit the loops which iterate
->extra_bytes to 7 because more doesnt fit in a trace record.


Olaf


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