[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/3] x86/hvm: Rearange check_segment() to use a switch statement
>>> On 03.07.17 at 15:15, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/07/17 13:34, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 30.06.17 at 17:04, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> + case x86_seg_ds: >>> + case x86_seg_es: >>> + if ( (reg->attr.fields.type & 0x8) && !(reg->attr.fields.type & >>> 0x2) ) >>> + { >>> + gprintk(XENLOG_ERR, "Non-readable segment provided for DS or > ES\n"); >>> + return -EINVAL; >>> + } >>> + break; >>> + >>> + default: /* -Werror=switch */ >>> + break; >>> } >> Perhaps better to have >> >> default: >> ASSERT_UNREACHABLE(); >> case x86_seg_tr: >> break; >> >> to make more visible that it is not an oversight that especially FS >> and GS aren't being handled here? Either way >> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> > > The x86_seg_tr case exits check_segment() rather earlier. I don't think it does - there are just two specific error paths there. > How about > > default: > ASSERT_UNREACHABLE(); > return -EINVAL; > > ? Indeed I would have suggested this if I had been able to convince myself that x86_seg_tr can't come here. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |