[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210204221318.GI32255@zn.tnic>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 23:13:18 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: efi: avoid BUILD_BUG_ON() for non-constant p4d_index
On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 04:43:58PM -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> This should check EFI_VA_END instead of EFI_VA_START, and maybe throw in
> a BUG_ON if EFI_VA_END >= EFI_VA_START.
No need:
if (efi_va < EFI_VA_END) {
pr_warn(FW_WARN "VA address range overflow!\n");
return;
}
We already check we're not going over at map time. And our runtime
services range is hardcoded. And we're switching to that PGD on each
runtime services call.
So I don't see the point for keeping any of the assertions.
Unless you have other valid arguments for keeping them...
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists