From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 7 22:00:35 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from [127.0.0.1] (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3B63106564A; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 22:00:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) From: Jung-uk Kim To: src-committers@FreeBSD.org Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 17:00:19 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <201203051953.q25JrIS1002269@svn.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201203051953.q25JrIS1002269@svn.freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201203071700.21259.jkim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" , "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" , "src-committers@freebsd.org" , John Baldwin Subject: Re: svn commit: r232570 - head/sys/boot/i386/boot2 X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 22:00:35 -0000 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