linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 07/12] efi: Use efi

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: <FFF73D592F13FD46B8700F0A279B802F2E581F50@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Mar 2018 08:37:00 +0000
From:   "Prakhya, Sai Praneeth" <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
CC:     "linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Lee, Chun-Yi" <jlee@...e.com>, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        "Neri, Ricardo" <ricardo.neri@...el.com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 07/12] efi: Use efi_mm in x86 as well as ARM

> > diff --git a/include/linux/efi.h b/include/linux/efi.h index
> > f5083aa72eae..f1b7d68ac460 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/efi.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/efi.h
> > @@ -966,6 +966,8 @@ extern struct efi {
> >  	unsigned long flags;
> >  } efi;
> >
> > +extern struct mm_struct efi_mm;
> > +
> >  static inline int
> >  efi_guidcmp (efi_guid_t left, efi_guid_t right)  {
> 
> Ugh, I can see three problems with this patch:
> 
> 1)
> 
> Why is the low level asm/efi.h header polluted with two of the biggest header
> files in existence, to add a type to _another_ header (efi.h)?
> 
> 2)
> 
> Why is <linux/sched/task.h> included if what is being relied on is mm_struct?
> 
> 3)
> 
> But even <linux/sched/mm.h> looks unnecessary in efi.h, a simple forward
> declaration of mm_struct would do ...
> 
> The high level MM and sched headers should be added to the actual .c files that
> make use of them.

Ok, makes sense.
Sorry! for that. I will fix the issues.

Regards,
Sai