On 06/19/2018 10:03 AM, Artyom Tarasenko wrote: > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland > <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk> wrote: >> On 15/06/18 11:37, Thomas Huth wrote: >> >>> Hi Mark, hi Artyom, >>> >>> while using valgrind to fix some issues with the rom_ptr() function >>> today, I noticed that there is one more problem in sun4u_load_kernel(): >>> The kernel_top variable can be used uninitialized in some cases: >>> If load_elf() fails and the kernel is loaded via load_aout() or >>> load_image_targphys(), the kernel_top variable is never set to a valid >>> value. This could cause some trouble when loading the initrd later. When >>> you've got some spare time, could you please have a look? >> >> >> Hmmm that's an interesting one - I'm not immediately aware of any 64-bit >> kernels that are a.out rather than ELF, so I wonder if this has been used to >> run a.out executables on startup? Any thoughts, Artyom? > > I think there are no Linux/SPARC64 kernels in the a.out format. > NetBSD should not be a problem either > >> If this is the case then we can only have a valid kernel_top with an ELF >> kernel then maybe the following is a good enough solution: >> >> >> diff --git a/hw/sparc64/sun4u.c b/hw/sparc64/sun4u.c >> index 3975a7b65a..35acf8c96e 100644 >> --- a/hw/sparc64/sun4u.c >> +++ b/hw/sparc64/sun4u.c >> @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ static uint64_t sun4u_load_kernel(const char >> *kernel_filename, >> unsigned int i; >> long kernel_size; >> uint8_t *ptr; >> - uint64_t kernel_top; >> + uint64_t kernel_top = 0; >> >> linux_boot = (kernel_filename != NULL); >> >> @@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ static uint64_t sun4u_load_kernel(const char >> *kernel_filename, >> } >> /* load initrd above kernel */ >> *initrd_size = 0; >> - if (initrd_filename) { >> + if (initrd_filename && kernel_top) { >> *initrd_addr = TARGET_PAGE_ALIGN(kernel_top); >> >> *initrd_size = load_image_targphys(initrd_filename, >> >> > Looks good to me. > Acked-by: Artyom Tarasenko <atar4q...@gmail.com>
Hi Mark, that looked also fine to me. Could you post it as a proper patch, please? Thanks, Thomas