[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qom-next] qapi: exclude negative values in uint*
From: |
Michael Roth |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qom-next] qapi: exclude negative values in uint*_t Visitor interfaces |
Date: |
Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:30:00 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 06:00:27PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>
> Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <address@hidden>
> ---
> (To be applied on top of 0f2de4a8.)
>
> qapi/qapi-visit-core.c | 11 ++++++++---
> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/qapi/qapi-visit-core.c b/qapi/qapi-visit-core.c
> index 9a29674..81f697f 100644
> --- a/qapi/qapi-visit-core.c
> +++ b/qapi/qapi-visit-core.c
> @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ void visit_type_uint8(Visitor *v, uint8_t *obj, const
> char *name, Error **errp)
> } else {
> value = *obj;
> v->type_int(v, &value, name, errp);
> - if (value > UINT8_MAX) {
> + if (value < 0 || value > UINT8_MAX) {
> error_set(errp, QERR_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE, name ? name :
> "null",
> "uint8_t");
> return;
> @@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ void visit_type_uint16(Visitor *v, uint16_t *obj, const
> char *name, Error **errp
> } else {
> value = *obj;
> v->type_int(v, &value, name, errp);
> - if (value > UINT16_MAX) {
> + if (value < 0 || value > UINT16_MAX) {
> error_set(errp, QERR_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE, name ? name :
> "null",
> "uint16_t");
> return;
> @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ void visit_type_uint32(Visitor *v, uint32_t *obj, const
> char *name, Error **errp
> } else {
> value = *obj;
> v->type_int(v, &value, name, errp);
> - if (value > UINT32_MAX) {
> + if (value < 0 || value > UINT32_MAX) {
> error_set(errp, QERR_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE, name ? name :
> "null",
> "uint32_t");
> return;
> @@ -163,6 +163,11 @@ void visit_type_uint64(Visitor *v, uint64_t *obj, const
> char *name, Error **errp
> } else {
> value = *obj;
> v->type_int(v, &value, name, errp);
> + if (value < 0) {
> + error_set(errp, QERR_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE, name ? name :
> "null",
> + "uint64_t");
> + return;
> + }
Sorry, responded a bit late in the last thread. But 2^64-1 is a valid
value for visit_type_uint64(), yet due to being stored to a int64_t,
it will fail the < 0 check, which introduces a regression for an
acceptable use-case.
The other checks make sense, however, since the max values do not
exceed the max signed range of the intermediate int64_t we store to, so
they're not ambiguous.
> *obj = value;
> }
> }
> --
> 1.7.1
>
>