From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from zipcode.az.mvista.com (unknown [65.200.49.156]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD5A7DDDE4 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:23:26 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:23:39 -0700 From: "Mark A. Greer" To: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/19] bootwrapper: compatibility layer for old U-Boots (a.k.a. cuImage, cuboot) Message-ID: <20070314232339.GA32287@mag.az.mvista.com> References: <20070312204204.GQ28545@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> <20070314214805.GA9546@mag.az.mvista.com> <45F86DC1.9010804@freescale.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <45F86DC1.9010804@freescale.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 04:48:49PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > Mark A. Greer wrote: > >Are you sure that '_end' (which is the end of the zImage/cuImage) > >is safe to use? If the kernel is large enough (e.g., INITRAMFS) > >it will overwrite your dtb when its decompressed and relocated to 0. > >You need to grok the elfheader to figure out where the kernel will end > >and take the max of that and _end. > > Wouldn't it overwrite the bootwrapper itself before overwriting the heap? Sure but that doesn't matter--the kernel is running so the bootwrapper's life is over but the dtb's life isn't. Mark