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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu_Yk1KHbKp940WufNLWU_WnRnThn+=rOJ=Lo6C7j3gqPw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Mar 2018 09:56:05 +0000
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:     "Prakhya, Sai Praneeth" <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "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

On 9 March 2018 at 08:37, Prakhya, Sai Praneeth
<sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com> wrote:
>> > 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.
>

I have some other fixups to do, so if this is as easy as it seems
(remove the #includes and add the forward declaration), I can fix it
up and resend it for you.