[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110427123935.1aacd8b9@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:39:35 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, efi: Only print warning when desc_size is smaller
than defined one.
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:42:24 -0700
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> One system get warning:
> Kernel-defined memdesc doesn't match the one from EFI!
>
> UEFI spec allows GetMemoryMap() return bigger desc_size and desc_ver for future
> extension.
> And desc_size is already used to get offset of next memory entry.
>
> Only need to check if desc_size is smaller than defined struct.
>
> Also print the size in warning if it happens.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
>
> ---
> arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
> +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
> @@ -448,9 +448,10 @@ void __init efi_init(void)
> printk(KERN_ERR "Could not map the EFI memory map!\n");
> memmap.map_end = memmap.map + (memmap.nr_map * memmap.desc_size);
>
> - if (memmap.desc_size != sizeof(efi_memory_desc_t))
> + if (memmap.desc_size < sizeof(efi_memory_desc_t))
> printk(KERN_WARNING
> - "Kernel-defined memdesc doesn't match the one from EFI!\n");
> + "Kernel-defined memdesc size is bigger than the one from EFI! %ld > %ld\n",
> + sizeof(efi_memory_desc_t), memmap.desc_size);
Does it make sense for this to just be a warning? If
sizeof(efi_memory_desec_t) > sizeof(memmap.desc_size) aren't we going
to run into some pretty serious problems when we start accessing
memory descriptors?
Would it not make more sense for this to be a BUG_ON()? In the unlikely
event that the kernel's efi_memory_desc_t is too large I really don't
see how we can recover from that.
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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