linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firmware: dmi_scan: Fix ordering of product

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 2015 09:04:49 +0800
From:	Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com>
To:	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	Artem Savkov <artem.savkov@...il.com>,
	Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: dmi_scan: Fix ordering of product_uuid

在 2015/4/16 17:30, Jean Delvare 写道:
> Le Thursday 16 April 2015 à 16:46 +0800, Zhenzhong Duan a écrit :
>> On 2015/4/16 15:09, Jean Delvare wrote:
>>> Le Thursday 16 April 2015 à 14:22 +0800, Zhenzhong Duan a écrit :
>>>> The basic idea is right, but you ignore the case dmi_walk_early may
>>>> fail, though looks impossible when bootup.
>>>>
>>>> Better to add below for robust.
>>>>
>>>> @@ -521,6 +521,6 @@ static int __init dmi_present(const u8 *
>>>>
>>>>                 return 0;
>>>>             }
>>>>         }
>>>> +    dmi_ver = 0;
>>>>         return 1;
>>>>     }
>>>>
>>> What is the value of this? dmi_ver will never be accessed after this
>>> point anyway, as far as I can see.
>> Same as above, future commit may not realize you bring this faulty when
>> they want to use dmi_ver.
> Why do you think this is "faulty"? The value in dmi_ver is correct
> whether dmi_walk_early() succeeded or not. There's no rationale for
> resetting dmi_ver on error and not dmi_num, dmi_len and dmi_base. Note
> that dmi_smbios3_present() doesn't reset any of these either. These
> values are all correct.
>
> If other modules need to check whether DMI was successfully initialized,
> they must check dmi_available rather than any of the variables above
> (which are all static anyway.)

You are right, dmi_available should be used here. Sorry for noise

zduan

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/