| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:28:26 +0800
From: joeyli <jlee@...e.com>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
Cc: "Lee, Chun-Yi" <joeyli.kernel@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...hat.com>,
Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/16] x86/efi: Carrying hibernation key by setup data
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 01:40:26PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug, at 02:16:28PM, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
> > For forwarding hibernation key from EFI stub to boot kernel, this patch
> > allocates setup data for carrying hibernation key, size and the status
> > of efi operating.
>
> This could do with some more information, and include that the key is
> used to validate hibernate images.
>
> But now that I think about it, is there a reason this patch hasn't
> been merged with patch 6? The memory leak I mentioned in patch 6
> becomes a non-issue in this one, so it would be good if these two
> could be squashed together.
>
OK, I will merge this patch with patch 6.
Actually the sequence of patches are from the order of my developing.
And, the purpose of code in this patch a bit different with patch 6,
so I didn't merge them together.
> > Reviewed-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.com>
> > Tested-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Lee, Chun-Yi <jlee@...e.com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bootparam.h | 1 +
> > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c
> > index 463aa9b..c838d09 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c
> > @@ -1394,18 +1394,22 @@ static void setup_hibernation_keys(struct boot_params *params)
> > {
> > unsigned long key_size;
> > unsigned long attributes;
> > + struct setup_data *setup_data, *hibernation_setup_data;
> > struct hibernation_keys *keys;
> > + unsigned long size = 0;
> > efi_status_t status;
>
> One thing to be aware of is that eboot.c has mainly used the
> "reverse-christmas-tree" style of variable declarations, with longer
> lines first, and shorter ones following. I haven't mentioned it before
> because none of your changes seemed to be too different (and it's not
> a tree-wide convention), but the above setup_data line goes a bit too
> far.
>
> Could you try and keep them ordered, longest line first?
>
Sure, sorry for I didn't aware that before.
> >
> > /* Allocate setup_data to carry keys */
> > + size = sizeof(struct setup_data) + sizeof(struct hibernation_keys);
> > status = efi_call_early(allocate_pool, EFI_LOADER_DATA,
> > - sizeof(struct hibernation_keys), &keys);
> > + size, &hibernation_setup_data);
> > if (status != EFI_SUCCESS) {
> > efi_printk(sys_table, "Failed to alloc mem for hibernation keys\n");
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > - memset(keys, 0, sizeof(struct hibernation_keys));
> > + memset(hibernation_setup_data, 0, size);
> > + keys = (struct hibernation_keys *) hibernation_setup_data->data;
> >
> > status = efi_call_early(get_variable, HIBERNATION_KEY,
> > &EFI_HIBERNATION_GUID, &attributes,
> > @@ -1419,7 +1423,8 @@ static void setup_hibernation_keys(struct boot_params *params)
> > if (status == EFI_SUCCESS) {
> > efi_printk(sys_table, "Cleaned existing hibernation key\n");
> > status = EFI_NOT_FOUND;
> > - }
> > + } else
> > + goto clean_fail;
>
> Please add braces for the 'else' clause. Also, please include a
> comment stating that the reason you jump to the label instead of
> returning is so that the EFI status error code can be recorded in
> hibernation_setup_data.
>
Thanks for suggestions, I will modify it.
> > }
> >
> > if (status != EFI_SUCCESS) {
> > @@ -1436,6 +1441,21 @@ static void setup_hibernation_keys(struct boot_params *params)
> > if (status != EFI_SUCCESS)
> > efi_printk(sys_table, "Failed to set hibernation key\n");
> > }
> > +
> > +clean_fail:
> > + hibernation_setup_data->type = SETUP_HIBERNATION_KEYS;
> > + hibernation_setup_data->len = sizeof(struct hibernation_keys);
> > + hibernation_setup_data->next = 0;
> > + keys->hkey_status = efi_status_to_err(status);
> > +
> > + setup_data = (struct setup_data *)params->hdr.setup_data;
> > + while (setup_data && setup_data->next)
> > + setup_data = (struct setup_data *)setup_data->next;
> > +
> > + if (setup_data)
> > + setup_data->next = (unsigned long)hibernation_setup_data;
> > + else
> > + params->hdr.setup_data = (unsigned long)hibernation_setup_data;
>
> This label name is a little confusing because you reach it both when
> the EFI boot variable was successfully created and when a bogus EFI
> variable failed to be deleted, i.e. it's not always reached because of
> a failure.
>
> How about 'setup' or simply 'out' ?
>
I will change the label to 'setup' that match with setting setup_data.
> --
> Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
Thanks a lot!
Joey Lee
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists