On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 09:17:09PM +0800, zijun_hu wrote: > On 08/01/2016 07:24 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 06:59:50PM +0800, zijun_hu wrote: > >> 2，it is more portable; we only need to call fdt_check_header() and don't > >> care about fdt header filed layout; moreover,fdt module is another independent > >> module and arm64 only uses it and should not depend on more details of fdt > >> such as size and magic fields locate within the first MIN_FDT_ALIGN bytes; > >> the decision whether a fdt header is corrupted should be left to fdt team > > > > While it's true that we assume knowledge of the FDT format, and ideally > > we'd leave this to common code, we do so regardless by requiring the > > header size. So both approaches assume details regarding the FDT format. > > > okay, the only thing my solution is depends on is the fdt header struct name > which maybe remain unchanged in further fdt source modification > regardless of fields layout or position or header size; > > by the way, my solution only maps more one SWAPPER_BLOCK_SIZE at extreme condition > (offset + sizeof(struct fdt_header)) > SWAPPER_BLOCK_SIZE, it can occurs very rarely, > even it happens, it is no matter due to the fast mapping operations > > That all said, ard.biesheuvel's can resolves address fault too, you can decide which > solution to used, maybe ask fdt team for some advisements As a member of the "fdt team" (at least for bindings and the spec), I'm happy with Ard's patch. ;) Regardless, many thanks for the report, and the proposed fix! Thanks, Mark. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html