[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877drb1lhx.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 21:07:06 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: tip-bot2 for Kairui Song <tip-bot2@...utronix.de>,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Kairui Song <kasong@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
x86 <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [tip: x86/urgent] x86/kexec: Use up-to-dated screen_info copy to fill boot params
On Wed, Oct 14 2020 at 15:43, tip-bot wrote:
> The following commit has been merged into the x86/urgent branch of tip:
> x86/kexec: Use up-to-dated screen_info copy to fill boot params
>
> kexec_file_load() currently reuses the old boot_params.screen_info,
> but if drivers have change the hardware state, boot_param.screen_info
> could contain invalid info.
>
> For example, the video type might be no longer VGA, or the frame buffer
> address might be changed. If the kexec kernel keeps using the old screen_info,
> kexec'ed kernel may attempt to write to an invalid framebuffer
> memory region.
>
> There are two screen_info instances globally available, boot_params.screen_info
> and screen_info. Later one is a copy, and is updated by drivers.
>
> /* Copying screen_info will do? */
> - memcpy(¶ms->screen_info, &boot_params.screen_info,
> - sizeof(struct screen_info));
> + memcpy(¶ms->screen_info, &screen_info, sizeof(struct screen_info));
Well, that's better than what we had before, but how is this correct
vs. the following sequence:
kexec_load()
change_screen()
kexec()
Hmm?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists