[PATCH 08/32] cmd: fdt: Handle 64bit pointers in fdt get addr

[Marek Vasut]

On 3/1/23 16:02, Simon Glass wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 12:55, Marek Vasut
> <marek.vasut+renesas at mailbox.org> wrote:
>>
>> The command assumed 32bit pointers so far, with 64bit pointer the
>> command would overwrite a piece of stack. Fix it by extending the
>> array size to cater for 64bit pointer, and use snprintf() to avoid
>> writing past the end of the array ever again.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas at mailbox.org>
>> ---
>> Cc: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt at canonical.com>
>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>> Cc: Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>
>> ---
>>   cmd/fdt.c | 4 ++--
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> 
> 
>> diff --git a/cmd/fdt.c b/cmd/fdt.c
>> index 279dad9fe11..bc19303159d 100644
>> --- a/cmd/fdt.c
>> +++ b/cmd/fdt.c
>> @@ -466,9 +466,9 @@ static int do_fdt(struct cmd_tbl *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char *const argv[])
>>                                                  return ret;
>>                                  } else if (subcmd[0] == 'a') {
>>                                          /* Get address */
>> -                                       char buf[11];
>> +                                       char buf[19];
>>
>> -                                       sprintf(buf, "0x%p", nodep);
>> +                                       snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "0x%p", nodep);
> 
> Do we need the 0x? I believe that is always the base.

I would argue this behavior is an ABI by now.
I did send a separate patch on top, which can then be reverted if that 
would break anything:

https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20230302030440.322361-1-marek.vasut+renesas@mailbox.org/