[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] mpc83xx: protect memcpy to bad address if a local-mac-address is missing from dt
protect memcpy to bad address if a local-mac-address is missing from dt
--- cpu/mpc83xx/cpu.c | 2 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu.c b/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu.c index bc61219..f1b2749 100644 --- a/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu.c +++ b/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu.c @@ -309,11 +309,13 @@ ft_cpu_setup(void *blob, bd_t *bd)
#ifdef CONFIG_MPC83XX_TSEC1 p = ft_get_prop(blob, "/" OF_SOC "/ethernet@24000/local-mac-address", &len); + if (p != NULL) memcpy(p, bd->bi_enetaddr, 6); #endif
#ifdef CONFIG_MPC83XX_TSEC2 p = ft_get_prop(blob, "/" OF_SOC "/ethernet@25000/local-mac-address", &len); + if (p != NULL) memcpy(p, bd->bi_enet1addr, 6); #endif }
On Jan 30, 2007, at 4:15 PM, Kim Phillips wrote:
protect memcpy to bad address if a local-mac-address is missing from dt
How about fixing 85xx as well since its broken in the same way.
- k
cpu/mpc83xx/cpu.c | 2 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu.c b/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu.c index bc61219..f1b2749 100644 --- a/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu.c +++ b/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu.c @@ -309,11 +309,13 @@ ft_cpu_setup(void *blob, bd_t *bd)
#ifdef CONFIG_MPC83XX_TSEC1 p = ft_get_prop(blob, "/" OF_SOC "/ethernet@24000/local-mac- address", &len);
- if (p != NULL) memcpy(p, bd->bi_enetaddr, 6);
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_MPC83XX_TSEC2 p = ft_get_prop(blob, "/" OF_SOC "/ethernet@25000/local-mac- address", &len);
- if (p != NULL) memcpy(p, bd->bi_enet1addr, 6);
#endif } -- 1.4.4
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php? page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ U-Boot-Users mailing list U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
On Jan 30, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
How about fixing 85xx as well since its broken in the same way.
Why do we have separate 83xx and 85xx versions of the same thing? We should be combining all of this now, and standardizing on the calling conventions. Either all of the board ports call the generic function, or having the generic function called by default with the possibility for a board specific callout to follow for any fix up. While you are at it, the 86xx and some 8xx should be combined as well.
Thanks.
-- Dan
participants (3)
-
Dan Malek -
Kim Phillips -
Kumar Gala