On 27.09.2023 08:32, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 27.09.2023 00:37, Shawn Anastasio wrote: >> --- a/xen/common/page_alloc.c >> +++ b/xen/common/page_alloc.c >> @@ -1211,6 +1211,14 @@ static unsigned int node_to_scrub(bool get_node) >> } while ( !cpumask_empty(&node_to_cpumask(node)) && >> (node != local_node) ); >> >> + /* >> + * In practice `node` will always be within MAX_NUMNODES, but GCC >> can't >> + * always see that, so an explicit check is necessary to avoid >> tripping >> + * its out-of-bounds array access warning (-Warray-bounds). >> + */ >> + if ( node >= MAX_NUMNODES ) >> + break; >> + >> if ( node == local_node ) >> break; > > My comment on v1 wasn't addressed, either verbally or by a code change.
I have to apologize, you did respond, and I didn't spot the response earlier on. I'm not happy about the added code, but at least it has a comment now. Hence I guess I simply withdraw my objection, so the change can go in. Jan > Imo > that would move us a tiny step closer to what Andrew was asking for as well. > > Jan >
