| Message ID | 20221019102015.2441622-1-bmeng.cn@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v4,1/3] util/main-loop: Fix maximum number of wait objects for win32 | expand |
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 6:20 PM Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: > > From: Bin Meng <bin.meng@windriver.com> > > The maximum number of wait objects for win32 should be > MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS, not MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS + 1. > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bin.meng@windriver.com> > --- > > Changes in v4: > - make the out of bounds access protection explicit > > Changes in v3: > - move the check of adding the same HANDLE twice to a separete patch > > Changes in v2: > - fix the logic in qemu_add_wait_object() to avoid adding > the same HANDLE twice > > util/main-loop.c | 10 +++++----- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > Ping?
Hi Daniel, On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 12:41 AM Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 6:20 PM Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > From: Bin Meng <bin.meng@windriver.com> > > > > The maximum number of wait objects for win32 should be > > MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS, not MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS + 1. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bin.meng@windriver.com> > > --- > > > > Changes in v4: > > - make the out of bounds access protection explicit > > > > Changes in v3: > > - move the check of adding the same HANDLE twice to a separete patch > > > > Changes in v2: > > - fix the logic in qemu_add_wait_object() to avoid adding > > the same HANDLE twice > > > > util/main-loop.c | 10 +++++----- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > Ping? Would you queue this series? Thanks! Regards, Bin
On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 09:14:55AM +0800, Bin Meng wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 12:41 AM Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 6:20 PM Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > From: Bin Meng <bin.meng@windriver.com> > > > > > > The maximum number of wait objects for win32 should be > > > MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS, not MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS + 1. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bin.meng@windriver.com> > > > --- > > > > > > Changes in v4: > > > - make the out of bounds access protection explicit > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > - move the check of adding the same HANDLE twice to a separete patch > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > - fix the logic in qemu_add_wait_object() to avoid adding > > > the same HANDLE twice > > > > > > util/main-loop.c | 10 +++++----- > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > > Ping? > > Would you queue this series? Thanks! The main loop is not my area as maintainer - it would normally be Paolo IIRC. With regards, Daniel
On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 8:03 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 09:14:55AM +0800, Bin Meng wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 12:41 AM Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 6:20 PM Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Bin Meng <bin.meng@windriver.com> > > > > > > > > The maximum number of wait objects for win32 should be > > > > MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS, not MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS + 1. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bin.meng@windriver.com> > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Changes in v4: > > > > - make the out of bounds access protection explicit > > > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > > - move the check of adding the same HANDLE twice to a separete patch > > > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > > - fix the logic in qemu_add_wait_object() to avoid adding > > > > the same HANDLE twice > > > > > > > > util/main-loop.c | 10 +++++----- > > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > Ping? > > > > Would you queue this series? Thanks! > > The main loop is not my area as maintainer - it would normally be > Paolo IIRC. > Thanks, but Paolo has been silent since day 1 ... Regards, Bin
On 19/10/22 12:20, Bin Meng wrote: > From: Bin Meng <bin.meng@windriver.com> > > The maximum number of wait objects for win32 should be > MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS, not MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS + 1. > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bin.meng@windriver.com> > --- > > Changes in v4: > - make the out of bounds access protection explicit > > Changes in v3: > - move the check of adding the same HANDLE twice to a separete patch > > Changes in v2: > - fix the logic in qemu_add_wait_object() to avoid adding > the same HANDLE twice > > util/main-loop.c | 10 +++++----- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/util/main-loop.c b/util/main-loop.c > index f00a25451b..de38876064 100644 > --- a/util/main-loop.c > +++ b/util/main-loop.c > @@ -363,10 +363,10 @@ void qemu_del_polling_cb(PollingFunc *func, void *opaque) > /* Wait objects support */ > typedef struct WaitObjects { > int num; > - int revents[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS + 1]; > - HANDLE events[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS + 1]; > - WaitObjectFunc *func[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS + 1]; > - void *opaque[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS + 1]; > + int revents[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS]; > + HANDLE events[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS]; > + WaitObjectFunc *func[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS]; > + void *opaque[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS]; > } WaitObjects; > > static WaitObjects wait_objects = {0}; > @@ -395,7 +395,7 @@ void qemu_del_wait_object(HANDLE handle, WaitObjectFunc *func, void *opaque) > if (w->events[i] == handle) { > found = 1; > } > - if (found) { > + if (found && i < (MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS - 1)) { Matter of style, I find this form easier to review (same logic than what follows): if (found && i + 1 < MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS) { > w->events[i] = w->events[i + 1]; > w->func[i] = w->func[i + 1]; > w->opaque[i] = w->opaque[i + 1]; Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
diff --git a/util/main-loop.c b/util/main-loop.c index f00a25451b..de38876064 100644 --- a/util/main-loop.c +++ b/util/main-loop.c @@ -363,10 +363,10 @@ void qemu_del_polling_cb(PollingFunc *func, void *opaque) /* Wait objects support */ typedef struct WaitObjects { int num; - int revents[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS + 1]; - HANDLE events[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS + 1]; - WaitObjectFunc *func[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS + 1]; - void *opaque[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS + 1]; + int revents[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS]; + HANDLE events[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS]; + WaitObjectFunc *func[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS]; + void *opaque[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS]; } WaitObjects; static WaitObjects wait_objects = {0}; @@ -395,7 +395,7 @@ void qemu_del_wait_object(HANDLE handle, WaitObjectFunc *func, void *opaque) if (w->events[i] == handle) { found = 1; } - if (found) { + if (found && i < (MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS - 1)) { w->events[i] = w->events[i + 1]; w->func[i] = w->func[i + 1]; w->opaque[i] = w->opaque[i + 1];