linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86_64 EFI runtime service support

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]

Message-ID: <46C38AA8.5040202@zytor.com>
Date:	Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:22:16 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Chandramouli Narayanan <mouli@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86_64 EFI runtime service support

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:30:19 +0800
> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
> 
>> Following sets of patches add EFI/UEFI (Unified Extensible Firmware
>> Interface) runtime services support to x86_64 architecture.
> 
> OK, we have a major trainwreck when these patches meet Peter's
> get-newsetup.patch.
> 
> I'm halfway into fixing it when I see this.  You have:
> 
>  #define SYS_DESC_TABLE (*(struct sys_desc_table_struct*)(PARAM+0xa0))
> +#define EFI_LOADER_SIG ((unsigned char *)(PARAM+0x1c0))
> +#define EFI_MEMDESC_SIZE (*((unsigned int *) (PARAM+0x1c4)))
> +#define EFI_MEMDESC_VERSION (*((unsigned int *) (PARAM+0x1c8)))
> +#define EFI_MEMMAP_SIZE (*((unsigned int *) (PARAM+0x1cc)))
> +#define EFI_MEMMAP (*((unsigned long *)(PARAM+0x1d0)))
> +#define EFI_SYSTAB (*((unsigned long *)(PARAM+0x1d8)))
>  #define MOUNT_ROOT_RDONLY (*(unsigned short *) (PARAM+0x1F2))
> 

Please, no more of these kinds of macros.  We have already had
collisions.  Go ahead and redefine the efi_info structure if necessary,
but use fixed types (u8, u16, u32, u64), *NOT* unsigned long which is
different between i386 and x86-64.  Also keep in mind the boot code
might in the future be compiled with a 16-bit compiler, so assuming
"unsigned int" == 32 bits is also a Bad Thing.

> 
> I'll give up and will drop the EFI patches.  I'd suggest that you work with
> Peter on getting these patches integrated.
> 

Thanks.

	-hpa
-
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/