Hi Dan,
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 at 04:56, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpen...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 06:49:44PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 at 09:40, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpen...@linaro.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The > comparison needs to be changed to >= to prevent an out of bounds
> > > write on th next line.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpen...@linaro.org>
> > > ---
> > > lib/addr_map.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/addr_map.c b/lib/addr_map.c
> > > index 9b3e0a544e47..86e932e4b561 100644
> > > --- a/lib/addr_map.c
> > > +++ b/lib/addr_map.c
> > > @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ void *addrmap_phys_to_virt(phys_addr_t paddr)
> > > void addrmap_set_entry(unsigned long vaddr, phys_addr_t paddr,
> > > phys_size_t size, int idx)
> > > {
> > > - if (idx > CONFIG_SYS_NUM_ADDR_MAP)
> > > + if (idx >= CONFIG_SYS_NUM_ADDR_MAP)
> > > return;
> >
> > It looks like this function should return an error.
> >
>
> If we hit this error path there probably isn't a reasonable way to
> recover. Maybe we could add a WARN()?
When we get an error we should report it. For leaf functions like
this, WARN adds to code size for a case that should not happen. The
caller will need to check the error and fail. The function should
always have had an error-return code, by the look of it. If we adopt
the approach of warning instead of returning error codes,
+Bin Meng
+Kumar Gala
Regards,
Simon
