There's no point in continuing if in the end we'll return -EFAULT
anyway. It also seems wrong to report a chunk for which at least one
write-back failed as successfully exchanged (albeit the indication of
an error is also not fully correct, as the exchange happened in that
case at least partially - retrieving the GFN to assign the memory to
and/or handing back the information on the replacement memory didn't
work). In any case limiting the amount of damage done to the guest
can't be all that bad an idea.
Reported-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
master commit:
1cf4d2ec0d7c0cb53729ca810e416793030f6f07
master date: 2017-04-05 16:39:16 +0200
}
}
BUG_ON( !(d->is_dying) && (j != (1UL << out_chunk_order)) );
+
+ if ( rc )
+ goto fail;
}
exch.nr_exchanged = exch.in.nr_extents;