Hi, On Tue, 2026-11-03 at 08:41 -0800, E Shattow wrote: > Hi Nikita, > > On 11/3/26 01:53, Nikita Shubin wrote: > > The next patch makes spl_load_fit_image() check spl_image->fdt_addr > > and > > What is "The next patch" is it this patch? or the next one that is > not > this one... confusing. The whole description could instead be > "Zero-initialize spl_image_info on the stack in preparation for any > writes to spl_image->fdt_addr" or however this is.
Simon please advise, should i roll v4 ? > > The "next" patch will appear in git history and explain further. > > > write the loadables into that FDT. With an uninitialised > > spl_image_info > > on the stack this could end up writing to a random address. > > > > Use memset() to make sure spl_image_info is initialised before > > passing > > it, as board_init_r() does. > > > > Signed-off-by: Nikita Shubin <[email protected]> > > --- > > test/image/spl_load_os.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/test/image/spl_load_os.c b/test/image/spl_load_os.c > > index ba9d7979a09..e2b55d66394 100644 > > --- a/test/image/spl_load_os.c > > +++ b/test/image/spl_load_os.c > > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ static int spl_test_load(struct unit_test_state > > *uts) > > struct spl_image_info image; > > char fname[256]; > > > > + memset(&image, 0, sizeof(image)); > > ut_assertok(sandbox_spl_load_fit(fname, sizeof(fname), > > &image)); > > > > return 0; > > @@ -26,6 +27,7 @@ static int spl_test_load_fit_full(struct > > unit_test_state *uts) > > struct spl_image_info image; > > char fname[256]; > > > > + memset(&image, 0, sizeof(image)); > > ut_assertok(sandbox_spl_load_fit_full(fname, > > sizeof(fname), &image)); > > > > return 0; > > > > -E
