On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 at 19:51, Simon Glass sjg@google.com wrote:
Hi Dan,
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 at 04:56, Dan Carpenter dan.carpenter@linaro.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 06:49:44PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Dan,
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 at 09:40, Dan Carpenter dan.carpenter@linaro.org wrote:
The > comparison needs to be changed to >= to prevent an out of bounds write on th next line.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter dan.carpenter@linaro.org
lib/addr_map.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/addr_map.c b/lib/addr_map.c index 9b3e0a544e47..86e932e4b561 100644 --- a/lib/addr_map.c +++ b/lib/addr_map.c @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ void *addrmap_phys_to_virt(phys_addr_t paddr) void addrmap_set_entry(unsigned long vaddr, phys_addr_t paddr, phys_size_t size, int idx) {
if (idx > CONFIG_SYS_NUM_ADDR_MAP)
if (idx >= CONFIG_SYS_NUM_ADDR_MAP) return;It looks like this function should return an error.
If we hit this error path there probably isn't a reasonable way to recover. Maybe we could add a WARN()?
When we get an error we should report it. For leaf functions like this, WARN adds to code size for a case that should not happen. The caller will need to check the error and fail. The function should always have had an error-return code, by the look of it. If we adopt the approach of warning instead of returning error codes,
+Bin Meng +Kumar Gala
Since this is a fix, separate from the poor API:
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org