On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 02:00:33PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 12:05 PM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> > We just need to use calloc() in the tool and not mess with alignment.
>
> Like this?
>
> --- a/tools/fit_image.c
> +++ b/tools/fit_image.c
> @@ -446,7 +446,6 @@ static int fit_extract_data(struct
> image_tool_params *params, const char *fname)
> int ret;
> int images;
> int node;
> - int image_number;
> int align_size;
>
> align_size = params->bl_len ? params->bl_len : 4;
> @@ -461,13 +460,12 @@ static int fit_extract_data(struct
> image_tool_params *params, const char *fname)
> ret = -EINVAL;
> goto err_munmap;
> }
> - image_number = fdtdec_get_child_count(fdt, images);
>
> /*
> * Allocate space to hold the image data we will extract,
> * extral space allocate for image alignment to prevent overflow.
> */
> - buf = malloc(fit_size + (align_size * image_number));
> + buf = calloc(1, fit_size);
> if (!buf) {
> ret = -ENOMEM;
> goto err_munmap;
>
> If this is not the right approach, care to propose a patch?I mean just literally changing the malloc(...) to calloc(1, ...), audit any other malloc(...) calls in the file and change nothing else. Thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
