[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191214194936.GB140998@rani.riverdale.lan>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 14:49:36 -0500
From: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
To: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Matthew Garrett <matthewgarrett@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] efi/libstub: distinguish between native/mixed not
32/64 bit
On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 02:46:27PM -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 06:57:30PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > +
> > +#define efi_table_attr(table, attr, instance) ({ \
> > + __typeof__(((table##_t *)0)->attr) __ret; \
> > + if (efi_is_native()) { \
> > + __ret = ((table##_t *)instance)->attr; \
> > + } else { \
> > + __typeof__(((table##_32_t *)0)->attr) at; \
> > + at = (((table##_32_t *)(unsigned long)instance)->attr); \
> > + __ret = (__typeof__(__ret))(unsigned long)at; \
> > + } \
> > + __ret; \
> > +})
>
> The casting of `at' is appropriate if the attr is a pointer type which
> needs to be zero-extended to 64-bit, but for other fields it is
> unnecessary at best and possibly dangerous. There are probably no
> instances currently where it is called for a non-pointer field, but is
> it possible to detect if the type is pointer and avoid the cast if not?
To clarify, I mean the casting via `unsigned long' -- casting to type of
__ret should be ok. We could also use uintptr_t for cleanliness when the
cast is required?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists