Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] tools: introduce parameter max_wp_ram_ranges.

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 27.01.16 at 15:56, <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 1/27/2016 10:32 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 27.01.16 at 15:13, <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> About the truncation issue:
>>>     I do not quite follow. Will this hurt if the value configured does
>>> not exceed 4G? What about a type cast?
>>
>> A typecast would not alter behavior in any way. And of course
>> a problem only arises if the value was above 4 billion. You either
>> need to refuse such values while the attempt is made to set it.
>> or you need to deal with the full range of possible values. Likely
>> the former is the better (and I wonder whether the upper
>> bound shouldn't be forced even lower than 4 billion).
> 
> Oh, I see. A check with the upper bound sounds better. Using 4G as the
> upper bound is a little conservative, but I do not have any better
> criteria right now. :)

But when making that decision keep security in mind: How much
memory would it take to populate 4G rangeset nodes?

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel