? 2013?04?17? 08:13, Simon Horman ??: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:09:18PM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote: >> ? 2013?04?08? 17:29, Zhang Yanfei ??: >>> ? 2013?04?08? 17:23, Wang YanQing ??: >>>> This patch prevents the problems to happen below: >>>> In setup_linux_bootloader_parameters_high >>>> 120 cmdline_ptr = ((char *)real_mode) + cmdline_offset; >>>> 121 memcpy(cmdline_ptr, cmdline, cmdline_len); >>>> 122 cmdline_ptr[cmdline_len - 1] = '\0'; >>>> >>>> if cmdline_len == 0, Line 122 will corrupt kernel16 buf just before the commandline. >>>> And in do_bzImage_load, for example, >>>> 369 cmdline_end = setup_base + kern16_size_needed + command_line_len - 1; >>>> 370 elf_rel_set_symbol(&info->rhdr, "cmdline_end", &cmdline_end, >>>> 371 sizeof(unsigned long)); >>>> Line 369 will go wrong, too. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Wang YanQing <udknight at gmail.com> >>>> --- >>>> Hi Zhang Yanfei, could you give your signed-off-by to >>>> this patch? >>> >>> Yeah. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei at cn.fujitsu.com> >>> >>> Hi Simon, could you please take a look at this to see if the change is reasonable? >>> After all, if no commadline, we make the commandline_len to 1. I don't know if >>> this behaviour could be accepted by you. >>> >> >> Hi Simon >> >> What is your opinion about this patch? > > It seems reasonable to me, I have applied it. > > I have added your Signed-off-by. However, for reference: unless you are the > maintainer or were involved in writing the patch I think an Acked-by or > Tested-by would be more appropriate. > I added some codes in the mail when we discussed this patch, so I add my Signed-off-by. Anyway, thanks for your reminding:-) Thanks Zhang
