linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] efi_64: Fix a missing-check bug in arch/x86/platform/efi/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: <20190525023608.GA11613@zhanggen-UX430UQ>
Date:   Sat, 25 May 2019 10:36:08 +0800
From:   Gen Zhang <blackgod016574@...il.com>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc:     Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] efi_64: Fix a missing-check bug in
 arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.c

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 06:07:10PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Apologies for only spotting this now, but I seem to have given some bad advice.
> 
> efi_call_phys_prolog() in efi_64.c will also return NULL if
> (!efi_enabled(EFI_OLD_MEMMAP)), but this is not an error condition. So
> that occurrence has to be updated: please return efi_mm.pgd instead.
Thanks for your reply, Ard. You mean that we should return efi_mm.pgd
when allcoation fails? And we should delete return EFI_ABORTED on the 
caller site, right? In that case, how should we handle the NULL pointer
returned by condition if(!efi_enabled(EFI_OLD_MEMMAP)) on the caller 
site?

Thanks
Gen