lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] efi: Check EFI revision in setup_efi_vars
On 24/04/13 15:54, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 03:44:30PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
>> On 24/04/13 15:37, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> We need to check the runtime sys_table for the EFI version the firmware
>>> specifies instead of just checking for a NULL QueryVariableInfo. Older
>>> implementations of EFI don't have QueryVariableInfo but the runtime is
>>> a smaller structure, so the pointer to it may be pointing off into garbage.
>>>
>>> This is apparently the case with several Apple firmwares that support EFI
>>> 1.10, and the current check causes them to no longer boot. Fix based on
>>> a suggestion from Matthew Garrett.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c | 4 +++-
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c
>>> index 8615f75..b46efbf 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c
>>> @@ -258,7 +258,9 @@ static efi_status_t setup_efi_vars(struct boot_params *params)
>>> u64 store_size, remaining_size, var_size;
>>> efi_status_t status;
>>>
>>> - if (!sys_table->runtime->query_variable_info)
>>> + if (sys_table->runtime->hdr.revision < EFI_2_00_SYSTEM_TABLE_REVISION)
>>> + return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
>>> + else if(!sys_table->runtime->query_variable_info)
>>> return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
>>>
>>> data = (struct setup_data *)(unsigned long)params->hdr.setup_data;
>>>
>>
>> Thanks Josh, that looks correct.
>>
>> It's a small point, but does the check against NULL actually make sense?
>> I don't think we ever check other system table pointers against NULL.
>
> That I'm not sure of. I was going off of the assumption that Matthew
> put it there because someone's EFI 2.0 implementation was crappy and
> didn't actually implement it. So I left that check in place for now.

I presume that if that were true, virt_efi_query_variable_info() (which
is called indirectly from the efivars code) would have exploded before
now. Matthew?



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-04-24 17:42    [W:0.057 / U:0.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site