From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Razvan Cojocaru Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Xen/mem_event: Do not rely on the toolstack being bug-free Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:50:50 +0300 Message-ID: <53C7E2CA.5080906@bitdefender.com> References: <1405602637-8321-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> <53C7E04D.2020403@bitdefender.com> <53C7E1E0.5000902@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <53C7E1E0.5000902@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Andrew Cooper , Xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 07/17/2014 05:46 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 17/07/14 15:40, Razvan Cojocaru wrote: >> On 07/17/2014 04:10 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> Xen performs insufficient validation of the contents of mem_event responses >>> from the toolstack. As a result, a buggy toolstack could cause Xen to walk >>> off the end of a domain's vcpu list, and get out of sync with vcpu pause >>> reference counts. >>> >>> These two fixes are compile tested only, as I have no way to plausibly test >>> the mem-event functionality itself. >> I've ran a few tests for our application (heavily based on mem_event), >> and everything seems to work fine. >> >> >> Hope this helps, >> Razvan Cojocaru > > Fantastic - thanks! > > Does that mean you are happy for a "Tested-by: Razvan Cojocaru > " tag to accompany the series? Sure, glad to be of service.Tested-by: Razvan Cojocaru