From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH kvm-unit-tests v5 13/14] pci: add msi support for
 32/64bit address
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 15:21:37 +0800
Message-ID: <20161122072137.GA4173@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
References: <1479248709-10281-1-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com>
 <1479248709-10281-14-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20161121192751.GE30468@agordeev.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com>
 <20161122045920.GA425@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
 <20161122070306.GA6720@agordeev.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, drjones@redhat.com, jan.kiszka@web.de,
        rkrcmar@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com
To: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41858 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751736AbcKVHVm (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 22 Nov 2016 02:21:42 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161122070306.GA6720@agordeev.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 08:03:06AM +0100, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:59:20PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 08:27:52PM +0100, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > > +void pci_cap_walk(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	uint8_t cap_offset;
> > > > +	uint8_t cap_id;
> > > > +
> > > > +	cap_offset = pci_config_readb(dev->bdf, PCI_CAPABILITY_LIST);
> > > > +	while (cap_offset) {
> > > > +		cap_id = pci_config_readb(dev->bdf, cap_offset);
> > > > +		printf("PCI detected cap 0x%x\n", cap_id);
> > > > +		if (cap_handlers[cap_id])
> > > > +			cap_handlers[cap_id](dev, cap_offset);
> > > > +		cap_offset = pci_config_readb(dev->bdf, cap_offset + 1);
> > > > +	}
> > > > +}
> > > 
> > > Are you sure the function above is safe without range (sanity) checks?
> > 
> > No. :) But if something goes wrong, I guess that's possibly a QEMU PCI
> > bug. I can add some check if you think is necessary, like, make sure
> > the loop goes no more than a specific value?
> 
> Yes - I suppose PCI cap. list has a limit.

Will do. 0xff should suffice. Thanks,

-- peterx