[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 10:22:55 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc: Jörg Otte <jrg.otte@...il.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: EFI boot crash regression (was: Re: 5.6-### doesn't boot)
* Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
> Hello Jörg,
>
> Could you please try whether the change below fixes the issue?
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
> index 59f7f6d60cf6..ae923ee8e2b4 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
> @@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ static void __init efi_clean_memmap(void)
> .phys_map = efi.memmap.phys_map,
> .desc_version = efi.memmap.desc_version,
> .desc_size = efi.memmap.desc_size,
> - .size = data.desc_size * (efi.memmap.nr_map - n_removal),
> + .size = efi.memmap.desc_size * (efi.memmap.nr_map - n_removal),
> .flags = 0,
Oh, I actually noticed this one, but convinced myself that it's correct,
because GCC didn't warn about uninitialized data.
But maybe in this weird case data.desc_size as used within its own
initializer is zero?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists