On 11.10.2024 18:17, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > On Wed Oct 9, 2024 at 3:25 PM BST, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 01.10.2024 14:38, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>> @@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ static struct acpi_20_madt *construct_madt(struct >>> acpi_ctxt *ctxt, >>> lapic->length = sizeof(*lapic); >>> /* Processor ID must match processor-object IDs in the DSDT. */ >>> lapic->acpi_processor_id = i; >>> - lapic->apic_id = config->lapic_id(i); >>> + lapic->apic_id = config->cpu_to_apicid[i]; >> >> Perhaps assert (like you do in an earlier patch) that the ID is small >> enough? > > Actually, I just remembered why I didn't. libacpi is pulled into libxl, which > is integrated into libvirt. A failed assert here would kill the application, > which is not very nice. > > HVM is already protected by the mp tables assert, so I'm not terribly worried > about it and, while PVH is not, it would crash pretty quickly due to the > corruption. > > I'd rather have the domain crashing rather than virt-manager.
Fair enough. Jan
