From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26D1DC282E5 for ; Sat, 25 May 2019 02:36:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0E0021851 for ; Sat, 25 May 2019 02:36:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="s0a7PgP8" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726447AbfEYCgY (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 May 2019 22:36:24 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-f193.google.com ([209.85.210.193]:42814 "EHLO mail-pf1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726440AbfEYCgY (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 May 2019 22:36:24 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-f193.google.com with SMTP id r22so3475198pfh.9; Fri, 24 May 2019 19:36:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=tYxwe9lyS3Xueb1CoeTmlmL/Tl2Z+zsVKsgNJGaaxv0=; b=s0a7PgP8w5cvZCwCDzsqV+FB3rhEiyvzQs+dsLvTtg7SX71nHO90rFXJSXJfJutKev yPPm9pvO0QEm/2IV4LJ8ntcIYM+wEOkhPy8OTku40Tuq/cE6P0eIpcLn+gGVnK16CtSq 8FCBgM6sOdwuapNEMKzpgRhhbWrGBk3s6skQ/I2eBfp6bK1E3B9ILeje9AtSyXvn/Tpj dv0LZ1Q3WkVVQ1SMdyti2DdfwOJZz6sQOjLitS2bRjuI1pFxYJhSz8c4Kyd7Nuo6JZvk 3cHu2RJNSMzfEtVXMDhFdYEJEe9NK0Re0abV4DIOqppVv6DB2iUkBeqc2rTVA21E4j/S erWA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=tYxwe9lyS3Xueb1CoeTmlmL/Tl2Z+zsVKsgNJGaaxv0=; b=Ua3n17+Un7fSyDXNePFzqSMqtQVB4u3zTOd+GBFw1X1RDlKFdSztbWdXj6AOatWZBd ypGsQ2oYCrVngDczn8ZQ+vQBlJ2ulnifthzZnqNAlzq00z/usId5wMeacG5/NX1CnzSP lBvc5s8Zsqhns2NtkhScU80RsIo8QLVGEy/4a/9msawInyQSYUTYs35x/FfnCRGvyt4O tIO4mWLHdtFXhjRkP8juEK8MUqsVB7dx/nbsiqMja266eH3YyFAruYk949qMU805ZLE5 i4NuYH8RqmRSImmNG5aB1pM9grJadQtsyH1iFgEE2MLUaOZgTNVW47F+Yg0fWDJZPurU D+RA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWTtC1D73kuowwsyZ5UGG5luzLRVsUQPSyVTAxR+79MONwO/HqV 6S5MGKLkXqaxtcx5pZ5qcoU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw+IMAZlzuenQjEawqQMyOpg9k5Zv152ytwnMS0tVXUvTnjPJzndqx99GLunyxvyY8nk3uUUQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:bf0d:: with SMTP id c13mr13869888pjs.88.1558751783875; Fri, 24 May 2019 19:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zhanggen-UX430UQ ([66.42.35.75]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x66sm4175682pfx.139.2019.05.24.19.36.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 24 May 2019 19:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 25 May 2019 10:36:08 +0800 From: Gen Zhang To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: Darren Hart , linux-efi , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] efi_64: Fix a missing-check bug in arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.c Message-ID: <20190525023608.GA11613@zhanggen-UX430UQ> References: <20190517082633.GA3890@zhanggen-UX430UQ> <20190517090628.GA4162@zhanggen-UX430UQ> <20190523005133.GA14881@zhanggen-UX430UQ> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-efi-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 06:07:10PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > Apologies for only spotting this now, but I seem to have given some bad advice. > > efi_call_phys_prolog() in efi_64.c will also return NULL if > (!efi_enabled(EFI_OLD_MEMMAP)), but this is not an error condition. So > that occurrence has to be updated: please return efi_mm.pgd instead. Thanks for your reply, Ard. You mean that we should return efi_mm.pgd when allcoation fails? And we should delete return EFI_ABORTED on the caller site, right? In that case, how should we handle the NULL pointer returned by condition if(!efi_enabled(EFI_OLD_MEMMAP)) on the caller site? Thanks Gen