[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu92VwUo=1Fh39r1WxNWo-mQRLx8sDby+rGcero8oyi-WA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:35:01 +0000
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] arm/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary runtime
services [ver #2]
On 23 November 2016 at 09:34, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> +#define efi_call_runtime(f, ...) sys_table_arg->runtime->f(__VA_ARGS__)
>
> Turns out it's not that simple - of course. runtime->get_variable is just a
> void pointer. The old arm stub was casting it by virtue of assignment to a
> function pointer variable.
>
> The x86_64 appears to be doing bypassing all the compile-time type checking by
> passing the arguments through an ellipsis and then fixing up the argument list
> in the ->call() function.
>
> What I've changed the ARM and ARM64 things to is:
>
> #define efi_call_runtime(f, ...) ((efi_##f##_t *)sys_table_arg->runtime->f)(__VA_ARGS__)
>
Could we please instead fix the definition of efi_runtime_services_t,
given that we have typedefs already for all its members?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists