linux-kernel - Re: EFI boot crash regression (was: Re: 5.6-### doesn't boot)

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]

Date:   Sun, 2 Feb 2020 12:07:20 +0100
From:   Jörg Otte <jrg.otte@...il.com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        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)

Am So., 2. Feb. 2020 um 10:22 Uhr schrieb Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>:
>
>
> * 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?
>
Patch makes my kernel booting again :)

Thanks, Jörg