qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/4] pc-bios/s390-ccw: fix loadparm initializati


From: Thomas Huth
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/4] pc-bios/s390-ccw: fix loadparm initialization and int conversion
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 20:57:25 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0

On 10.04.2018 17:01, Collin Walling wrote:
> Rename the loadparm char array in main.c to loadparm_str and
> increase the size by one byte to account for a null termination
> when converting the loadparm string to an int via atoui. Also 
> allow the boot menu to be enabled when loadparm is set to an 
> empty string or a series of spaces.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Collin Walling <address@hidden>
> Reported-by: Vasily Gorbik <address@hidden>
> ---
>  hw/s390x/ipl.c          |  2 ++
>  pc-bios/s390-ccw/main.c | 14 +++++++-------
>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/hw/s390x/ipl.c b/hw/s390x/ipl.c
> index fdeaec3..23b5b54 100644
> --- a/hw/s390x/ipl.c
> +++ b/hw/s390x/ipl.c
> @@ -352,6 +352,8 @@ int s390_ipl_set_loadparm(uint8_t *loadparm)
>              loadparm[i] = ascii2ebcdic[(uint8_t) lp[i]];
>          }
>  
> +        memset(loadparm + i, 0x40, 8 - i); /* fill with EBCDIC spaces */
> +
>          g_free(lp);
>          return 0;
>      }
> diff --git a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/main.c b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/main.c
> index 9d9f8cf..26f9adf 100644
> --- a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/main.c
> +++ b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/main.c
> @@ -15,11 +15,11 @@
>  char stack[PAGE_SIZE * 8] __attribute__((__aligned__(PAGE_SIZE)));
>  static SubChannelId blk_schid = { .one = 1 };
>  IplParameterBlock iplb __attribute__((__aligned__(PAGE_SIZE)));
> -static char loadparm[8] = { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 };
> +static char loadparm_str[9] = { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 };
>  QemuIplParameters qipl;
>  
>  #define LOADPARM_PROMPT "PROMPT  "
> -#define LOADPARM_EMPTY  "........"
> +#define LOADPARM_EMPTY  "        "

Sorry for my ignorance, but why was the old string containing dots?

 Thomas



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]