Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 17:00:19 -0500 From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> To: src-committers@FreeBSD.org Cc: "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r232570 - head/sys/boot/i386/boot2 Message-ID: <201203071700.21259.jkim@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201203051953.q25JrIS1002269@svn.freebsd.org> References: <201203051953.q25JrIS1002269@svn.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 05 March 2012 02:53 pm, John Baldwin wrote: > Author: jhb > Date: Mon Mar 5 19:53:17 2012 > New Revision: 232570 > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/232570 > > Log: > Fix boot2 to handle boot config files that only contain a custom > path to a loader or kernel. Specifically, kname cannot be pointed > at cmd[] since it's value is change to be an empty string after the > initial call to parse, and cmd[]'s value can be changed (thus > losing a prior setting for kname) due to user input at the boot > prompt. While here, ensure that that initial boot config file text > is nul-terminated, that ops is initialized to zero, and that kname > is always initialized to a valid string. As many people pointed out, Clang overflows boot2 again after this commit. Long long time ago, I asked this question on arch@: http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200509081418.47794.jkim Why can't we do that now? Can't we build separate ufs1-only and ufs2-only boot2's, at least? Having ufs1+ufs2 boot block is great but I see very little benefit to support that in 2012. :-/ Jung-uk Kim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201203071700.21259.jkim>