Am Dienstag, den 22.07.2014, 07:38 +0200 schrieb Sascha Hauer:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:43:13PM +0200, basti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Block <basti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm/lib/bootm.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/bootm.c b/arch/arm/lib/bootm.c
> > index 4896d01..d9b9111 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/lib/bootm.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/lib/bootm.c
> > @@ -314,7 +314,7 @@ static int do_bootz_linux(struct image_data *data)
> > image_size - sizeof(*header));
> > if (ret < 0)
> > goto err_out;
> > - if (ret < end - sizeof(*header)) {
> > + if (ret < image_size - sizeof(*header)) {
>
> Did this cause any real trouble? I was quite surprised when I saw that
> patch. After a test I saw that for me 'image_size' has the same value as
> 'end'.
>
> The patch is obviously correct and will be applied, I'm just not sure if
> it's an important fix or a cleanup change.
>
I don't think this qualifies as a critical fix, as before the
introduction of this 'image_size' variable we always used 'end' as the
size of the image without running into any problems. So I think this is
only a correctness fix.
Regards,
Lucas
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Lucas Stach |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
