[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e7bd40ff-20d1-3aed-8516-9fffd4c3a207@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 12:27:01 +0100
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
Dave Olsthoorn <dave@...aar.me>, x86@...nel.org,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/8] efi: Add embedded peripheral firmware support
Hi Luis,
Thank you for the reviews and sorry for being a bit slow to respind.
On 11-10-2019 16:48, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 04:50:50PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> +static int __init efi_check_md_for_embedded_firmware(
>> + efi_memory_desc_t *md, const struct efi_embedded_fw_desc *desc)
>> +{
>> + const u64 prefix = *((u64 *)desc->prefix);
>> + struct sha256_state sctx;
>> + struct embedded_fw *fw;
>> + u8 sha256[32];
>> + u64 i, size;
>> + void *map;
>> +
>> + size = md->num_pages << EFI_PAGE_SHIFT;
>> + map = memremap(md->phys_addr, size, MEMREMAP_WB);
>
> Since our limitaiton is the init process must have mostly finished,
> it implies early x86 boot code cannot use this, what measures can we
> take to prevent / check for such conditions to be detected and
> gracefully errored out?
As with all (EFI) early boot code, there simply is a certain order
in which things need to be done. This needs to happen after the basic
mm is setup, but before efi_free_boot_services() gets called, there
isn't really a way to check for all these conditions. As with all
early boot code, people making changes need to be careful to not
break stuff.
>
>> + if (!map) {
>> + pr_err("Error mapping EFI mem at %#llx\n", md->phys_addr);
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> + }
>> +
>> + size -= desc->length;
>
> Remind me again, why we decrement the size here?
Basically this is another way of writing:
for (i = 0; (i + desc->length) < size; i += 8) {
> I was going to ask if we didn't need a:
>
> if (desc->length > size) {
> memunmap(map);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
That is a good point, unlikely but still a good point,
so I guess that writing:
for (i = 0; (i + desc->length) < size; i += 8) {
Instead would better as that avoids the need for that check.
I will fix this for the next version.
Regards,
Hans
>
>> + for (i = 0; i < size; i += 8) {
>> + u64 *mem = map + i;
>> +
>> + if (*mem != prefix)
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + sha256_init(&sctx);
>> + sha256_update(&sctx, map + i, desc->length);
>> + sha256_final(&sctx, sha256);
>> + if (memcmp(sha256, desc->sha256, 32) == 0)
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + if (i >= size) {
>> + memunmap(map);
>> + return -ENOENT;
>> + }
>> +
>> + pr_info("Found EFI embedded fw '%s'\n", desc->name);
>
> Otherwise looks good.
>
> Luis
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists