[U-Boot] [PATCH] common: nvedit to protect additional ethernet addresses Part 1/1

[Jerry Van Baren <gerald.vanbaren@ge.com>]

(Resent in response to complex, non scalable suggestions: IMHO
   strncmp (name, "ethaddr", 7)
is a simple and good solution that covers all known and several unknown 
cases.)

stefan.althoefer at web.de wrote:
> [PATCH] common: nvedit to protect additional ethernet addresses
> 
> This patch adds "ethaddr1" and "ethaddr2" to the protected
> environment variables that can only be written once.
> 
> ----
> The patch is against "latest" u-boot git-repository
> 
> Please be patient if style of submission or patches are
> offending.
> 
> Signed-off-by: stefan.althoefer at web.de  (as at janz.de)
> ----
> 
> diff -uprN u-boot-orig//common/cmd_nvedit.c u-boot/common/cmd_nvedit.c
> --- u-boot-orig//common/cmd_nvedit.c	2008-12-02 17:25:31.000000000 +0100
> +++ u-boot/common/cmd_nvedit.c	2008-12-02 22:59:36.000000000 +0100
> @@ -188,6 +188,8 @@ int _do_setenv (int flag, int argc, char
>  #else
>  		    (strcmp (name, "serial#") == 0) ||
>  #endif
> +		    (strcmp (name, "ethaddr1") == 0) ||
> +		    (strcmp (name, "ethaddr2") == 0) ||
>  		    ((strcmp (name, "ethaddr") == 0)
>  #if defined(CONFIG_OVERWRITE_ETHADDR_ONCE) && defined(CONFIG_ETHADDR)
>  		     && (strcmp ((char *)env_get_addr(oldval),MK_STR(CONFIG_ETHADDR)) != 0)

Would it be better to use "strncmp (name, "ethaddr", 7)" instead of
adding all possible enumerations of ethaddr[0-9]*?  Using strncmp() will
match any ethaddr.* variable (a wider net than ethaddr[0-9]*, but given
our limited environment it shouldn't matter).

gvb