linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86:sysfb_efi:efifb_set_system: fix miss valid address range in later BARs

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:	Tue, 3 May 2016 16:20:22 +0100
From:	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To:	Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>
Cc:	Wang YanQing <udknight@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, dh.herrmann@...il.com,
	tomi.valkeinen@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86:sysfb_efi:efifb_set_system: fix miss valid
 address range in later BARs

On Mon, 02 May, at 03:11:20PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 12:21:05AM +0800, Wang YanQing wrote:
> > We can't just break out when meet start is equal to zero,
> > this will cause we miss valid address range in later BARs.
> > 
> > On the other hand, it isn't enough to test start only
> > for below situation:
> > 0(start) <= lfb_base < end
> > 
> > Note: this patch also add a trivial optimization,
> >       break out after we find the address range
> >       is valid without test later BARs.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Wang YanQing <udknight@...il.com>
> 
> This looks correct to me:
> 
> Reviewed-By: Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>
> 
> Cc'ing Matt Fleming, since this should probably go through the EFI tree.

Applied, thanks.