qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v2 41/86] hw/hppa/machine: Correctly check the firmware is in


From: Igor Mammedov
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 41/86] hw/hppa/machine: Correctly check the firmware is in PDC range
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 17:34:48 +0100

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 16:14:45 +0100
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 1/15/20 10:59 PM, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jan 2020, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:  
> >> On 1/15/20 7:15 PM, BALATON Zoltan wrote:  
> >>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2020, Igor Mammedov wrote:  
> >>>> From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden>
> >>>>
> >>>> The firmware has to reside in the PDC range. If the Elf file
> >>>> expects to load it below FIRMWARE_START, it is incorrect,
> >>>> regardless the RAM size.
> >>>>
> >>>> Acked-by: Helge Deller <address@hidden>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <address@hidden>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <address@hidden>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> hw/hppa/machine.c | 2 +-
> >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/hw/hppa/machine.c b/hw/hppa/machine.c
> >>>> index 5d0de26..6775d87 100644
> >>>> --- a/hw/hppa/machine.c
> >>>> +++ b/hw/hppa/machine.c
> >>>> @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ static void machine_hppa_init(MachineState 
> >>>> *machine)
> >>>>     qemu_log_mask(CPU_LOG_PAGE, "Firmware loaded at 0x%08" PRIx64
> >>>>                   "-0x%08" PRIx64 ", entry at 0x%08" PRIx64 ".\n",
> >>>>                   firmware_low, firmware_high, firmware_entry);
> >>>> -    if (firmware_low < ram_size || firmware_high >= FIRMWARE_END) {
> >>>> +    if (firmware_low < FIRMWARE_START || firmware_high >= 
> >>>> FIRMWARE_END) {
> >>>>         error_report("Firmware overlaps with memory or IO space");
> >>>>         exit(1);  
> >>>
> >>> Should this also be EXIT_FAILURE like in other places when you're 
> >>> changing the line nearby?  
> >>
> >> I didn't changed this line, this seems unrelated to the patch purpose.  
> > 
> > Fair enough. Just thought because there was patch 85/86 making that 
> > change to keep consistency. Maybe you can change this in that patch but 
> > I don't really mind just spotted it.  
> 
> Ah this is because it is a patch of mine included in Igor series, and 
> Igor uses EXIT_FAILURE in his other patches, OK now it makes sense.
> 
> Maybe the EXIT_FAILURE can be done in a new series, calling 'sed' to 
> update the full repository.

I'll fix it up on respin

> 




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]