On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 01:49:52PM +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 1:27 PM Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 09:54:10PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 14:01, Simon Goldschmidt > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > If the malloc range passed to mem_malloc_init() is at the end of address > > > > range and 'start + size' overflows to 0, following allocations fail as > > > > mem_malloc_end is zero (which looks like uninitialized). > > > > > > > > Fix this by subtracting 1 of 'start + size' overflows to zero. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Goldschmidt <[email protected]> > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Changes in v4: None > > > > Changes in v3: None > > > > > > > > common/dlmalloc.c | 4 ++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> > > > > So, the problem with this patch is that it increases the generic malloc > > code size ever so slightly and blows up smartweb :( > > Ehrm, ok, so how do we proceed?
A good question. Take a look at spl/u-boot-spl.map on smartweb and see if, of the malloc functions it doesn't discard there's something that maybe could be optimized somewhere? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
