[U-Boot] [PATCH] dm: avoid dev->req_seq overflow
Robert Baldyga
r.baldyga at samsung.com
Fri Sep 19 07:25:36 CEST 2014
On 09/18/2014 08:00 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> On 18 September 2014 09:13, Robert Baldyga <r.baldyga at samsung.com
> <mailto:r.baldyga at samsung.com>> wrote:
>
> Since dev->req_seq value is initialized from "reg" property of fdt node,
> there is posibility, that address value contained in fdt is greater than
> INT_MAX, and then value in dev->req_seq is negative which led to probe()
> fail.
>
> This patch fix this problem by ensuring that req_seq is positive, unless
> it's one of errno codes.
>
>
> Wouldn't this be a bug in the device tree file? What does it mean to
> have a -ve value?
>
Device tree seems to be ok. We have:
pinctrl0: pinctrl at e0200000 {
compatible = "samsung,s5pc110-pinctrl";
reg = <0xe0200000 0x1000>;
};
So when we take address from "reg" as dev->req_seq, then value
0xe0200000 after casting to int gives -534773760. Function
uclass_resolve_seq() returns it as proper seq number, because it's
unique. But then in file drivers/core/device.c, in function
device_probe() we have:
seq = uclass_resolve_seq(dev);
if (seq < 0) {
ret = seq;
goto fail;
}
And it will obviously fail.
Using "reg" value as req_seq doesn't work when this value is greater
than INT_MAX.
>
> Signed-off-by: Robert Baldyga <r.baldyga at samsung.com
> <mailto:r.baldyga at samsung.com>>
> ---
> drivers/core/device.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/core/device.c b/drivers/core/device.c
> index 166b073..35ffce0 100644
> --- a/drivers/core/device.c
> +++ b/drivers/core/device.c
> @@ -107,6 +107,8 @@ int device_bind(struct udevice *parent, struct
> driver *drv, const char *name,
> * when the device is probed.
> */
> dev->req_seq = fdtdec_get_int(gd->fdt_blob, of_offset,
> "reg", -1);
> + if (!IS_ERR_VALUE(dev->req_seq))
> + dev->req_seq &= INT_MAX;
> dev->seq = -1;
> if (uc->uc_drv->name && of_offset != -1) {
> fdtdec_get_alias_seq(gd->fdt_blob, uc->uc_drv->name,
> of_offset,
> --
> 1.9.1
>
Thanks,
Robert Baldyga
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list