On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 07:55:10PM +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > Am 05.05.2019 um 13:38 schrieb Tom Rini: > >On Sat, May 04, 2019 at 08:16:38PM +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > >>Tom, > >> > >>Am 26.04.2019 um 13:00 schrieb Marek Vasut: > >>>On 4/26/19 12:19 PM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > >>>>On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:56 AM Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> > >>>>wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>On 4/26/19 11:36 AM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > >>>>>>On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:32 AM Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>On 4/26/19 8:19 AM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > >>>>>>>>Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> schrieb am Fr., 26. Apr. 2019, > >>>>>>>>00:22: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>On 4/25/19 9:22 PM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>If the malloc range passed to mem_malloc_init() is at the end of > >>>>>>>>>>address > >>>>>>>>>>range and 'start + size' overflows to 0, following allocations fail > >>>>>>>>>>as > >>>>>>>>>>mem_malloc_end is zero (which looks like uninitialized). > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>Fix this by subtracting 1 of 'start + size' overflows to zero. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>Signed-off-by: Simon Goldschmidt <simon.k.r.goldschm...@gmail.com> > >> > >>Since there's no way this fits without breaking smartweb, I'd rather drop > >>this for now in order to get 1/2 accepted. > > > >I thought that with 1/2 this fit again, with gcc-7.3 at least? Thanks! > > I'm not sure, as I don't have it here to test. But as this patch doesn't > actually fix a board but fixes an issue in the code that *might* appear in > the future, I'm not convinced it would be the right thing to merge it like > it is. > > And I'm also a little short on time to investigate this further, as it's not > a real bug, currently.
OK, thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
