linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 10/18] x86, acpi: Try to find if SRAT is overrided earlier.

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: <51FB485A.9070801@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:49:14 +0800
From:	Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
CC:	rjw@...k.pl, lenb@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu,
	hpa@...or.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tj@...nel.org,
	trenn@...e.de, yinghai@...nel.org, jiang.liu@...wei.com,
	wency@...fujitsu.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com, izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com,
	mgorman@...e.de, minchan@...nel.org, mina86@...a86.com,
	gong.chen@...ux.intel.com, vasilis.liaskovitis@...fitbricks.com,
	lwoodman@...hat.com, riel@...hat.com, jweiner@...hat.com,
	prarit@...hat.com, zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com,
	yanghy@...fujitsu.com, x86@...nel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/18] x86, acpi: Try to find if SRAT is overrided
 earlier.

On 08/02/2013 09:19 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
......
>> +phys_addr_t __init early_acpi_override_srat(void)
>> +{
>> +	int i;
>> +	u32 length;
>> +	long offset;
>> +	void *ramdisk_vaddr;
>> +	struct acpi_table_header *table;
>> +	struct cpio_data file;
>> +	unsigned long map_step = NR_FIX_BTMAPS<<  PAGE_SHIFT;
>> +	phys_addr_t ramdisk_image = get_ramdisk_image();
>> +	char cpio_path[32] = "kernel/firmware/acpi/";
>
> Don't you need to check if ramdisk is present before parsing the table?
> You may need something like:
>
>    if (!ramdisk_image || !get_ramdisk_size())
>          return 0;

Yes, it is better to do such a check here. But is there a possibility that
no ramdisk is present and we come to setup_arch() ?

......
>> +
>> +	return ramdisk_image;
>
> Doesn't this function return a physical address regardless of SRAT if a
> ramdisk is present?

Yes, and it is not good. I'll add the check above so that this won't happen.

Thanks.

--
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/