Some versions of Xen 3.x set their magic number to "xen-3.[12]", so relax the test to match them. [ Linus: Please apply for 2.6.24. Thanks - J ] Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xensource.com> --- arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) ==================================================================--- a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c +++ b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c @@ -1131,7 +1131,7 @@ asmlinkage void __init xen_start_kernel( if (!xen_start_info) return; - BUG_ON(memcmp(xen_start_info->magic, "xen-3.0", 7) != 0); + BUG_ON(memcmp(xen_start_info->magic, "xen-3", 5) != 0); /* Install Xen paravirt ops */ pv_info = xen_info; _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:> Some versions of Xen 3.x set their magic number to "xen-3.[12]", so > relax the test to match them.> - BUG_ON(memcmp(xen_start_info->magic, "xen-3.0", 7) != 0); > + BUG_ON(memcmp(xen_start_info->magic, "xen-3", 5) != 0);Not BUG_ON(memcmp(xen_start_info->magic, "xen-3.", 6) != 0); ? I don''t thin Xen version 32 will be compatible ... _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-Dec-11 17:16 UTC
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] xen: relax signature check
Bodo Eggert wrote:> Not BUG_ON(memcmp(xen_start_info->magic, "xen-3.", 6) != 0); ? > I don''t thin Xen version 32 will be compatible ... >It had better be; if it loads the kernel, it should present a xen-3 compatible ABI. But this is just a sanity check to make sure things are basically OK; BUG_ON is hardly nice error reporting (not that there''s much else we can do at that point). J _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:> Bodo Eggert wrote: >> Not BUG_ON(memcmp(xen_start_info->magic, "xen-3.", 6) != 0); ? >> I don''t thin Xen version 32 will be compatible ... >> > > It had better be; if it loads the kernel, it should present a xen-3 > compatible ABI.If xen-32.0 should be compatible than wouldn''t xen-24.0 be compatible too? I think the point was that you should either be checking for ''xen-3.x'' or something more general that would accept anything >= xen-3.0. Regards, Anthony Liguori> But this is just a sanity check to make sure things are basically OK; > BUG_ON is hardly nice error reporting (not that there''s much else we can > do at that point). > > J_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-Dec-12 19:36 UTC
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] xen: relax signature check
Anthony Liguori wrote:> If xen-32.0 should be compatible than wouldn''t xen-24.0 be compatible > too? I think the point was that you should either be checking for > ''xen-3.x'' or something more general that would accept anything >> xen-3.0.The signature is supposed to be an ABI signature, so regardless of the actual hypervisor version, it should always present "xen-3.0" (presumably backwards compat if it also supports other versions of the ABI). There was a bug in some versions where it puts the actual hypervisor version in there, requiring this patch. Technically that means that looking for "xen-3." is more accurate, but frankly not important enough to bother raising a patch over. J _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel