[U-Boot] [PATCH v5 2/2] dlmalloc: fix malloc range at end of ram

[Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>]

On 4/26/19 8:19 AM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
> Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> schrieb am Fr., 26. Apr. 2019, 00:22:
> 
>> On 4/25/19 9:22 PM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
>>> If the malloc range passed to mem_malloc_init() is at the end of address
>>> range and 'start + size' overflows to 0, following allocations fail as
>>> mem_malloc_end is zero (which looks like uninitialized).
>>>
>>> Fix this by subtracting 1 of 'start + size' overflows to zero.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Goldschmidt <simon.k.r.goldschmidt@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes in v5:
>>> - this patch was 1/2 in v4 but is now 2/2 as the 2nd patch of v4 has
>>>   already been accepted
>>> - rearrange the code to make it only 8 bytes plus in code size for arm
>>>   (which fixes smartweb SPL overflowing)
>>>
>>>  common/dlmalloc.c | 6 +++++-
>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/common/dlmalloc.c b/common/dlmalloc.c
>>> index 6f12a18d54..38859ecbd4 100644
>>> --- a/common/dlmalloc.c
>>> +++ b/common/dlmalloc.c
>>> @@ -601,8 +601,12 @@ void *sbrk(ptrdiff_t increment)
>>>  void mem_malloc_init(ulong start, ulong size)
>>>  {
>>>       mem_malloc_start = start;
>>> -     mem_malloc_end = start + size;
>>>       mem_malloc_brk = start;
>>> +     mem_malloc_end = start + size;
>>> +     if (size > mem_malloc_end) {
>>> +             /* overflow: malloc area is at end of address range */
>>> +             mem_malloc_end--;
>>
>> Does this mean a memory wrap-around happened ?
>> I don't think decrementing malloc area size by 1 is a proper solution.
>> You can have it overflow by 2 and decrementing by 1 won't help.
>>
> 
> No, not a real overflow. Instead, as I tried to described in the commit
> message, mem_malloc_end gets 0 if the range is at the end of addr range,
> e.g. malloc start is 0xffff0000 and malloc size is 0x10000. Subtracting 1
> will be enough here. It reduces the available mall of aize, but I don't
> think that should be a problem.

That's a wrap-around . What happens with your example if malloc_size is
0x10001 ? Hint: It fails ...

> I got this when experimenting with full heap in socfpga. Due to other
> patches not being accepted, this is not an issue currebtly, but can easily
> become one on the future.
> 
> Regrds,
> Simon
> 
> 
>>> +     }
>>>
>>>       debug("using memory %#lx-%#lx for malloc()\n", mem_malloc_start,
>>>             mem_malloc_end);
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Marek Vasut
>>
> 


-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut