Commit f6f0f818 authored by David Woodhouse's avatar David Woodhouse

[MTD] [NOR] Fix overflow check in jedec_probe

Having laid the code out so that it's easier to read instead of sticking
to the 80-column guideline even when it doesn't make sense, a bug is
immediately spotted... we were only checking _one_ of the unlock
addresses to see if it runs off the end of the map.
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
parent 5d3cce3b
......@@ -1952,7 +1952,7 @@ static int jedec_probe_chip(struct map_info *map, __u32 base,
}
/* Ensure the unlock addresses we try stay inside the map */
probe_offset1 = cfi_build_cmd_addr(cfi->addr_unlock1, cfi_interleave(cfi), cfi->device_type);
probe_offset2 = cfi_build_cmd_addr(cfi->addr_unlock1, cfi_interleave(cfi), cfi->device_type);
probe_offset2 = cfi_build_cmd_addr(cfi->addr_unlock2, cfi_interleave(cfi), cfi->device_type);
if ( ((base + probe_offset1 + map_bankwidth(map)) >= map->size) ||
((base + probe_offset2 + map_bankwidth(map)) >= map->size))
goto retry;
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment