On 03/09/2012 10:13 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 9 March 2012 15:57, Mark Langsdorf <mark.langsd...@calxeda.com> wrote: >> Since the ram_size field of arm_boot_info is only an int, don't set >> that field to more than INT_MAX. Signed vs unsigned comparison >> overruns are possible otherwise. > > Can't we just make arm_boot_info.ram_size a uint32_t (propagating through > signedness fixes as required) ? > > Actually it should probably be a target_phys_addr_t, thinking ahead > to adding LPAE support.
It really should be a size_t, per the upthread discussion with Andreas Faerber. I'll take a stab at the patch, but it touches a lot of code that I don't really have a way to test so I'm a bit dubious. --Mark Langsdorf Calxeda, Inc.
