On 03.07.2008 18:46, Peter Stuge wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 04:28:54PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
>
>> + if ((*walk) == 0 || ((*walk) & 0x3ff) != 0 || *walk > size ||
>> + *(walk - 1) > size || *(walk - 2) > size ||
>> + (!isprint((const char *)(bios + size - *(walk - 1))) &&
>> + ((const char *)(bios + size - *(walk - 1)))) ||
>> + (!isprint((const char *)(bios + size - *(walk - 2))) &&
>> + ((const char *)(bios + size - *(walk - 2))))) {
>>
>
> I am in total disbelief. I should probably not be wasting any more of
> my time on cleanups and restructuring.
>
Well, this is the only reliable fix until somebody steps forward to
implement LAR recognition for flashrom and fake LAR headers for v2 and
we agree on a standard for encapsulating vendor/model information in a
LAR. I don't see that happening in the next few weeks.
> But let's discuss a technical aspect. Hhow does this new heuristic
> relate to v3 larballs?
>
If it worked with v3 before, it will still work.
Regards,
Carl-Daniel
--
http://www.hailfinger.org/
--
coreboot mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
