Messages in this thread - First message in thread
- "Lee, Chun-Yi"
- "Lee, Chun-Yi"
- "Lee, Chun-Yi"
- "Lee, Chun-Yi"
- "Lee, Chun-Yi"
- "Lee, Chun-Yi"
- "Lee, Chun-Yi"
- "Lee, Chun-Yi"
- "Lee, Chun-Yi"
- "Lee, Chun-Yi"
- "Lee, Chun-Yi"
- "Lee, Chun-Yi"
- "Lee, Chun-Yi"
- "Lee, Chun-Yi"
- "Lee, Chun-Yi"
- "Lee, Chun-Yi"
- "Lee, Chun-Yi"
- "Lee, Chun-Yi"
- "Lee, Chun-Yi"
- Florian Weimer
| | | Date | Thu, 5 Sep 2013 09:53:48 +0100 | From | Matt Fleming <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 11/18] Hibernate: introduced RSA key-pair to verify signature of snapshot |
| |
On Thu, 22 Aug, at 07:01:50PM, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote: > +static int efi_status_to_err(efi_status_t status) > +{ > + int err; > + > + switch (status) { > + case EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER: > + err = -EINVAL; > + break; > + case EFI_OUT_OF_RESOURCES: > + err = -ENOSPC; > + break; > + case EFI_DEVICE_ERROR: > + err = -EIO; > + break; > + case EFI_WRITE_PROTECTED: > + err = -EROFS; > + break; > + case EFI_SECURITY_VIOLATION: > + err = -EACCES; > + break; > + case EFI_NOT_FOUND: > + err = -ENODATA; > + break; > + default: > + err = -EINVAL; > + } > + > + return err; > +}
Please don't reimplement this. Instead make the existing function global.
[...]
> +static void *load_wake_key_data(unsigned long *datasize) > +{ > + u32 attr; > + void *wkey_data; > + efi_status_t status; > + > + if (!efi_enabled(EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES)) > + return ERR_PTR(-EPERM); > + > + /* obtain the size */ > + *datasize = 0; > + status = efi.get_variable(EFI_S4_WAKE_KEY_NAME, &EFI_HIBERNATE_GUID, > + NULL, datasize, NULL); > + if (status != EFI_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL) { > + wkey_data = ERR_PTR(efi_status_to_err(status)); > + pr_err("PM: Couldn't get wake key data size: 0x%lx\n", status); > + goto error; > + }
Is it safe to completely bypass the efivars interface and access efi.get_variable() directly? I wouldn't have thought so, unless you can guarantee that the kernel isn't going to access any of the EFI runtime services while you execute this function.
-- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
| |