linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v9 1/1] efi: a misc char interface for user to update efi firmware

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:	Thu, 5 Nov 2015 03:42:25 +0000
From:	"Kweh, Hock Leong" <hock.leong.kweh@...el.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Ong, Boon Leong" <boon.leong.ong@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>,
	Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	"Roy Franz" <roy.franz@...aro.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Fleming, Matt" <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	"Anvin, H Peter" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v9 1/1] efi: a misc char interface for user to update
 efi firmware

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:bp@...en8.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 4:15 AM
> 
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 07:17:28AM +0000, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
> > This is not a return value to indicate what is going now. It is a flag
> > used in "cap_info->index" which positive value has a meaning of index
> > number. I am using the negative value for the flag which similar to
> > the implementation of pointer & error pointer (ERR_PTR).
> 
> Ok, but that doesn't make any sense: you're assigning UPLOAD_DONE to
> cap_info->index only once in efi_capsule_submit_update() and you're not
> testing it anywhere. Yeah, yeah, you're implicitly testing for it by
> doing the "< 0" check.
> 
> So simply assign -1 to ->index to mean *any* type of error occurred,
> remove the defines and you can always test for "< 0" to mean "did
> something fail".
> 
> You simply don't need two error values...
> 

Ok. Noted.

Thanks & Regards,
Wilson