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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 7 Mar 2018 13:11:20 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Chun-Yi Lee <jlee@...e.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@...hat.com>,
        Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@...el.com>,
        Ravi Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peter.zijlstra@...el.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] efi: Introduce efi_rts_workqueue and some
 infrastructure to invoke all efi_runtime_services()

On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 03:23:09PM -0800, Sai Praneeth Prakhya wrote:
> +#define efi_queue_work(_rts, _arg1, _arg2, _arg3, _arg4, _arg5)		\
> +({									\
> +	struct efi_runtime_work efi_rts_work;				\
> +									\
> +	INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&efi_rts_work.work, efi_call_rts);		\
> +	efi_rts_work.func = _rts;					\
> +	efi_rts_work.arg1 = _arg1;					\
> +	efi_rts_work.arg2 = _arg2;					\
> +	efi_rts_work.arg3 = _arg3;					\
> +	efi_rts_work.arg4 = _arg4;					\
> +	efi_rts_work.arg5 = _arg5;					\
> +	/*								\
> +	 * queue_work() returns 0 if work was already on queue,		\
> +	 * _ideally_ this should never happen.				\
> +	 */								\
> +	if (queue_work(efi_rts_wq, &efi_rts_work.work))			\
> +		flush_work(&efi_rts_work.work);				\
> +	else								\
> +		BUG();							\

So failure to queue that work is such a critical problem that we need
to BUG() and can't possibly continue and shoult not attempt recovery at
all?

IOW, we should always strive to fail gracefully and not shit in pants at
the first sign of trouble.

Even checkpatch warns here:

WARNING: Avoid crashing the kernel - try using WARN_ON & recovery code rather than BUG() or BUG_ON()
#184: FILE: drivers/firmware/efi/runtime-wrappers.c:92:
+               BUG();                                                  \


and by looking at the other output, you should run your patches through
checkpatch. Some of the things make sense like:

WARNING: quoted string split across lines
#97: FILE: drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c:341:
+               pr_err("Failed to create efi_rts_workqueue, EFI runtime services "
+                      "disabled.\n");

for example.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ