From: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>
To: Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
Cc: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
x86@kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
hpa@zytor.com, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
mika.penttila@nextfour.com, bhsharma@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] efi/x86: move efi bgrt init code to early init code
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 13:21:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87o9zbno9r.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170113030404.GA14023@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> (Dave Young's message of "Fri, 13 Jan 2017 11:04:04 +0800")
On Fri, Jan 13 2017, Dave Young wrote:
> On 01/13/17 at 10:21am, Dave Young wrote:
>> On 01/13/17 at 12:11am, Nicolai Stange wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jan 13 2017, Dave Young wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 01/12/17 at 12:54pm, Nicolai Stange wrote:
>> > >> On Thu, Jan 12 2017, Dave Young wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > -void __init efi_bgrt_init(void)
>> > >> > +void __init efi_bgrt_init(struct acpi_table_header *table)
>> > >> > {
>> > >> > - acpi_status status;
>> > >> > void *image;
>> > >> > struct bmp_header bmp_header;
>> > >> >
>> > >> > if (acpi_disabled)
>> > >> > return;
>> > >> >
>> > >> > - status = acpi_get_table("BGRT", 0,
>> > >> > - (struct acpi_table_header **)&bgrt_tab);
>> > >> > - if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
>> > >> > - return;
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Not sure, but wouldn't it be safer to reverse the order of this
>> > >> assignment
>> > >>
>> > >> > + bgrt_tab = *(struct acpi_table_bgrt *)table;
>> > >
>> > > Nicolai, sorry, I'm not sure I understand the comment, is it
>> > > about above line?
>> > > Could you elaborate a bit?
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> and this length check
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > I also do not get this :(
>> >
>> > Ah sorry, my point is this: the length check should perhaps be made
>> > before doing the assignment to bgrt_tab because otherwise, we might end
>> > up reading from invalid memory.
>> >
>> > I.e. if (struct acpi_table_bgrt *)table->length < sizeof(bgrt_tab), then
>> >
>> > bgrt_tab = *(struct acpi_table_bgrt *)table;
>> >
>> > would read past the table's end.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure whether this is a real problem though -- that is, whether
>> > this read could ever hit some unmapped memory.
>>
>> Nicolai, thanks for the explanation. It make sense to move it to even later
>> at the end of the function.
>
> Indeed assignment should be after the length checking, but with another
> tmp variable the assignment to global var can be moved to the end to
> avoid clear the image_address field..
I had a look at your updated patches at
http://people.redhat.com/~ruyang/efi-bgrt/ and they look fine to me.
One minor remark:
sizeof(acpi_table_bgrt) == 56 and it might be better to avoid the extra
tmp copy in efi_bgrt_init() by
- assigning directly to bgrt_tab
- do a 'goto err' rather than a 'return' from all the error paths
- do a memset(&bgrt_tab, 0, sizeof(bgrt_tab)) at 'err:'
With the copy to the on-stack 'bgrt', gcc 6.2.0 emits this for each of
the two copies:
41: 8a 07 mov (%rdi),%al
43: 88 45 d7 mov %al,-0x29(%rbp)
46: 8a 47 01 mov 0x1(%rdi),%al
49: 88 45 d6 mov %al,-0x2a(%rbp)
4c: 8a 47 02 mov 0x2(%rdi),%al
4f: 88 45 d5 mov %al,-0x2b(%rbp)
52: 8a 47 03 mov 0x3(%rdi),%al
55: 88 45 d4 mov %al,-0x2c(%rbp)
58: 8a 47 08 mov 0x8(%rdi),%al
5b: 88 45 d3 mov %al,-0x2d(%rbp)
5e: 8a 47 09 mov 0x9(%rdi),%al
61: 88 45 d2 mov %al,-0x2e(%rbp)
64: 8a 47 0a mov 0xa(%rdi),%al
67: 88 45 d1 mov %al,-0x2f(%rbp)
6a: 8a 47 0b mov 0xb(%rdi),%al
6d: 88 45 d0 mov %al,-0x30(%rbp)
70: 8a 47 0c mov 0xc(%rdi),%al
73: 88 45 cf mov %al,-0x31(%rbp)
76: 8a 47 0d mov 0xd(%rdi),%al
79: 88 45 ce mov %al,-0x32(%rbp)
7c: 8a 47 0e mov 0xe(%rdi),%al
7f: 88 45 cd mov %al,-0x33(%rbp)
82: 8a 47 0f mov 0xf(%rdi),%al
85: 88 45 cc mov %al,-0x34(%rbp)
88: 8a 47 10 mov 0x10(%rdi),%al
8b: 88 45 cb mov %al,-0x35(%rbp)
8e: 8a 47 11 mov 0x11(%rdi),%al
91: 88 45 ca mov %al,-0x36(%rbp)
94: 8a 47 12 mov 0x12(%rdi),%al
97: 88 45 c9 mov %al,-0x37(%rbp)
9a: 8a 47 13 mov 0x13(%rdi),%al
9d: 88 45 c8 mov %al,-0x38(%rbp)
a0: 8a 47 14 mov 0x14(%rdi),%al
a3: 8a 5f 26 mov 0x26(%rdi),%bl
a6: 0f b6 77 27 movzbl 0x27(%rdi),%esi
aa: 4c 8b 67 28 mov 0x28(%rdi),%r12
ae: 88 45 c7 mov %al,-0x39(%rbp)
b1: 8a 47 15 mov 0x15(%rdi),%al
b4: 44 8b 6f 30 mov 0x30(%rdi),%r13d
b8: 44 8b 7f 34 mov 0x34(%rdi),%r15d
bc: 88 45 c6 mov %al,-0x3a(%rbp)
bf: 8a 47 16 mov 0x16(%rdi),%al
c2: 88 45 c5 mov %al,-0x3b(%rbp)
c5: 8a 47 17 mov 0x17(%rdi),%al
c8: 88 45 c4 mov %al,-0x3c(%rbp)
cb: 8b 47 18 mov 0x18(%rdi),%eax
ce: 89 45 c0 mov %eax,-0x40(%rbp)
d1: 8a 47 1c mov 0x1c(%rdi),%al
d4: 88 45 bf mov %al,-0x41(%rbp)
d7: 8a 47 1d mov 0x1d(%rdi),%al
da: 88 45 be mov %al,-0x42(%rbp)
dd: 8a 47 1e mov 0x1e(%rdi),%al
e0: 88 45 bd mov %al,-0x43(%rbp)
e3: 8a 47 1f mov 0x1f(%rdi),%al
e6: 88 45 bc mov %al,-0x44(%rbp)
e9: 8b 47 20 mov 0x20(%rdi),%eax
ec: 89 45 b8 mov %eax,-0x48(%rbp)
ef: 66 8b 47 24 mov 0x24(%rdi),%ax
Not sure why gcc would think that storing bgrt in reversed order on the
stack might be a good idea, but well...
Thanks,
Nicolai
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nicolai Stange <nicstange-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: Dave Young <dyoung-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Nicolai Stange
<nicstange-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
Matt Fleming
<matt-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel
<ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
x86-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org>,
hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org,
Dan Williams
<dan.j.williams-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
mika.penttila-MRsr7dthA9VWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org,
bhsharma-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] efi/x86: move efi bgrt init code to early init code
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 13:21:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87o9zbno9r.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170113030404.GA14023-0VdLhd/A9Pl+NNSt+8eSiB/sF2h8X+2i0E9HWUfgJXw@public.gmane.org> (Dave Young's message of "Fri, 13 Jan 2017 11:04:04 +0800")
On Fri, Jan 13 2017, Dave Young wrote:
> On 01/13/17 at 10:21am, Dave Young wrote:
>> On 01/13/17 at 12:11am, Nicolai Stange wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jan 13 2017, Dave Young wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 01/12/17 at 12:54pm, Nicolai Stange wrote:
>> > >> On Thu, Jan 12 2017, Dave Young wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > -void __init efi_bgrt_init(void)
>> > >> > +void __init efi_bgrt_init(struct acpi_table_header *table)
>> > >> > {
>> > >> > - acpi_status status;
>> > >> > void *image;
>> > >> > struct bmp_header bmp_header;
>> > >> >
>> > >> > if (acpi_disabled)
>> > >> > return;
>> > >> >
>> > >> > - status = acpi_get_table("BGRT", 0,
>> > >> > - (struct acpi_table_header **)&bgrt_tab);
>> > >> > - if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
>> > >> > - return;
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Not sure, but wouldn't it be safer to reverse the order of this
>> > >> assignment
>> > >>
>> > >> > + bgrt_tab = *(struct acpi_table_bgrt *)table;
>> > >
>> > > Nicolai, sorry, I'm not sure I understand the comment, is it
>> > > about above line?
>> > > Could you elaborate a bit?
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> and this length check
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > I also do not get this :(
>> >
>> > Ah sorry, my point is this: the length check should perhaps be made
>> > before doing the assignment to bgrt_tab because otherwise, we might end
>> > up reading from invalid memory.
>> >
>> > I.e. if (struct acpi_table_bgrt *)table->length < sizeof(bgrt_tab), then
>> >
>> > bgrt_tab = *(struct acpi_table_bgrt *)table;
>> >
>> > would read past the table's end.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure whether this is a real problem though -- that is, whether
>> > this read could ever hit some unmapped memory.
>>
>> Nicolai, thanks for the explanation. It make sense to move it to even later
>> at the end of the function.
>
> Indeed assignment should be after the length checking, but with another
> tmp variable the assignment to global var can be moved to the end to
> avoid clear the image_address field..
I had a look at your updated patches at
http://people.redhat.com/~ruyang/efi-bgrt/ and they look fine to me.
One minor remark:
sizeof(acpi_table_bgrt) == 56 and it might be better to avoid the extra
tmp copy in efi_bgrt_init() by
- assigning directly to bgrt_tab
- do a 'goto err' rather than a 'return' from all the error paths
- do a memset(&bgrt_tab, 0, sizeof(bgrt_tab)) at 'err:'
With the copy to the on-stack 'bgrt', gcc 6.2.0 emits this for each of
the two copies:
41: 8a 07 mov (%rdi),%al
43: 88 45 d7 mov %al,-0x29(%rbp)
46: 8a 47 01 mov 0x1(%rdi),%al
49: 88 45 d6 mov %al,-0x2a(%rbp)
4c: 8a 47 02 mov 0x2(%rdi),%al
4f: 88 45 d5 mov %al,-0x2b(%rbp)
52: 8a 47 03 mov 0x3(%rdi),%al
55: 88 45 d4 mov %al,-0x2c(%rbp)
58: 8a 47 08 mov 0x8(%rdi),%al
5b: 88 45 d3 mov %al,-0x2d(%rbp)
5e: 8a 47 09 mov 0x9(%rdi),%al
61: 88 45 d2 mov %al,-0x2e(%rbp)
64: 8a 47 0a mov 0xa(%rdi),%al
67: 88 45 d1 mov %al,-0x2f(%rbp)
6a: 8a 47 0b mov 0xb(%rdi),%al
6d: 88 45 d0 mov %al,-0x30(%rbp)
70: 8a 47 0c mov 0xc(%rdi),%al
73: 88 45 cf mov %al,-0x31(%rbp)
76: 8a 47 0d mov 0xd(%rdi),%al
79: 88 45 ce mov %al,-0x32(%rbp)
7c: 8a 47 0e mov 0xe(%rdi),%al
7f: 88 45 cd mov %al,-0x33(%rbp)
82: 8a 47 0f mov 0xf(%rdi),%al
85: 88 45 cc mov %al,-0x34(%rbp)
88: 8a 47 10 mov 0x10(%rdi),%al
8b: 88 45 cb mov %al,-0x35(%rbp)
8e: 8a 47 11 mov 0x11(%rdi),%al
91: 88 45 ca mov %al,-0x36(%rbp)
94: 8a 47 12 mov 0x12(%rdi),%al
97: 88 45 c9 mov %al,-0x37(%rbp)
9a: 8a 47 13 mov 0x13(%rdi),%al
9d: 88 45 c8 mov %al,-0x38(%rbp)
a0: 8a 47 14 mov 0x14(%rdi),%al
a3: 8a 5f 26 mov 0x26(%rdi),%bl
a6: 0f b6 77 27 movzbl 0x27(%rdi),%esi
aa: 4c 8b 67 28 mov 0x28(%rdi),%r12
ae: 88 45 c7 mov %al,-0x39(%rbp)
b1: 8a 47 15 mov 0x15(%rdi),%al
b4: 44 8b 6f 30 mov 0x30(%rdi),%r13d
b8: 44 8b 7f 34 mov 0x34(%rdi),%r15d
bc: 88 45 c6 mov %al,-0x3a(%rbp)
bf: 8a 47 16 mov 0x16(%rdi),%al
c2: 88 45 c5 mov %al,-0x3b(%rbp)
c5: 8a 47 17 mov 0x17(%rdi),%al
c8: 88 45 c4 mov %al,-0x3c(%rbp)
cb: 8b 47 18 mov 0x18(%rdi),%eax
ce: 89 45 c0 mov %eax,-0x40(%rbp)
d1: 8a 47 1c mov 0x1c(%rdi),%al
d4: 88 45 bf mov %al,-0x41(%rbp)
d7: 8a 47 1d mov 0x1d(%rdi),%al
da: 88 45 be mov %al,-0x42(%rbp)
dd: 8a 47 1e mov 0x1e(%rdi),%al
e0: 88 45 bd mov %al,-0x43(%rbp)
e3: 8a 47 1f mov 0x1f(%rdi),%al
e6: 88 45 bc mov %al,-0x44(%rbp)
e9: 8b 47 20 mov 0x20(%rdi),%eax
ec: 89 45 b8 mov %eax,-0x48(%rbp)
ef: 66 8b 47 24 mov 0x24(%rdi),%ax
Not sure why gcc would think that storing bgrt in reversed order on the
stack might be a good idea, but well...
Thanks,
Nicolai
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-13 12:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-12 9:41 [PATCH 0/4] efi/x86: move efi bgrt init code to early init Dave Young
2017-01-12 9:41 ` [PATCH 1/4] efi/x86: make efi_memmap_reserve only insert into boot mem areas Dave Young
2017-01-12 9:41 ` Dave Young
2017-01-12 11:15 ` Nicolai Stange
2017-01-12 11:15 ` Nicolai Stange
2017-01-12 21:29 ` Dave Young
2017-01-12 21:29 ` Dave Young
2017-01-27 14:48 ` Matt Fleming
2017-01-27 17:04 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-01-27 17:04 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-01-27 22:13 ` Matt Fleming
2017-01-27 22:13 ` Matt Fleming
2017-01-27 22:15 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-01-27 22:15 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-01-12 16:15 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-01-12 16:15 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-01-12 21:20 ` Dave Young
2017-01-12 21:20 ` Dave Young
2017-01-13 8:10 ` Dave Young
2017-01-12 9:41 ` [PATCH 2/4] efi/x86: move efi bgrt init code to early init code Dave Young
2017-01-12 9:56 ` Dave Young
2017-01-12 11:54 ` Nicolai Stange
2017-01-12 11:54 ` Nicolai Stange
2017-01-12 21:39 ` Dave Young
2017-01-12 23:11 ` Nicolai Stange
2017-01-12 23:11 ` Nicolai Stange
2017-01-13 2:21 ` Dave Young
2017-01-13 3:04 ` Dave Young
2017-01-13 3:04 ` Dave Young
2017-01-13 12:21 ` Nicolai Stange [this message]
2017-01-13 12:21 ` Nicolai Stange
2017-01-16 2:55 ` Dave Young
2017-01-16 2:55 ` Dave Young
2017-01-12 16:20 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-01-12 16:20 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-01-12 21:33 ` Dave Young
2017-01-12 21:33 ` Dave Young
2017-01-16 15:15 ` Bhupesh Sharma
2017-01-17 17:00 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-01-12 9:41 ` [PATCH 3/4] efi/x86: move efi_print_memmap to drivers/firmware/efi/memmap.c Dave Young
2017-01-12 9:41 ` Dave Young
2017-01-12 12:08 ` Nicolai Stange
2017-01-12 21:40 ` Dave Young
2017-01-12 9:41 ` [PATCH 4/4] efi/x86: add debug code to print cooked memmap Dave Young
2017-01-12 16:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87o9zbno9r.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=nicstange@gmail.com \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=bhsharma@redhat.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--cc=mika.penttila@nextfour.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.